Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

October  2002

Subject: KEN, RESPONDING ABOUT RAPE - Re: liberty is necessarily imposed
by force, eh??!!
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:03:43 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

GOOD GAWD, KEN,

I WROTE ABOUT RAPE, AND YOU WROTE BACK CLAIMING IT'S DAMN HARD TO
DISTINGUISH "INITAION OF FORCE".

WELL, KEN, THAT'S WHAT LIBERTARIANISM IS ALL ABOUT!!

YOU, LOWELL & ROBERT HAVE SUUUCH A HARD TIME DISTINGUISHING, EVEN CLAIMING
IT CAN'T BE DONE.

WELL, IF THE THREE OF YOU ARE RIGHT, GUNS WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE
ONLY DAMN THING YOU GATTA DECIDE, UNABLE TO DISTINGUSH WHO HAS INATIED
FORCE, IS WHO THE HELL TO AIM THEM AT!!!!!!!!

LF

on 9/30/02 9:14 PM, Ken at happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> --- Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the definitions of the word "impose" (and the
>> one I'm assuming is being used here) is "to force
>> (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on another
>> or
>> others without right or invitation." (Webster's New
>> World Dictionary 3rd College Edition) A man who
>> attempts to make a woman have sex with him when she
>> doesn't want to have sex with him is IMPOSING
>> himself
>> on her. But if a woman tries to prevent him from
>> having sex with her, she's is hardly "imposing" her
>> presence, will, self, etc. on him without right or
>> invitation; she does indeed have the right to not
>> have
>> sex with him if she doesn't want to.
>>
> I would say she is indeed imposing her will; it is her
> will that she should not be raped, and by say,
> breaking out a 44, she is using force to her will
> known. I think she should enforce her will by all
> means; but I recognize that is what she is doing. I
> read once that in a war, it is really the defending
> nation that starts the war by not giving the attacker
> what it wants. There would be no force unless the
> resisting country wanted to defend itself; they could
> simply lay down their arms and give in and you have no
> war. This goes along those same lines. It's
> counterintuitive but true.
>
>> Initiations of force are bad. Using force to defend
>> against initiations of force is good. Muddying the
>> waters, by trying to make initiations of force and
>> self-defense sound like the same thing in order to
>> justify particular initiations of force is very,
>> very
>> bad.
>
> I hear the term "Initiation of force" a lot, but what
> does it really mean? Most situations are much more
> complex than a simple "he started it" explanation can
> give. Explain to me who initiated force in the first
> world war. Was it the Germans, the Serbians, the
> French, or who else? You can't give a simple answer to
> that; the situation had been building for a long time
> and many factors were part of the equation, some going
> back for centuries. That war in turn led to World War
> II, which led to the Cold War. If we looked at the
> Middle East and the many problems there, you can again
> see that the situation can be traced back for
> hundreds, or even thousands of years. Who initiated
> force in that region? Every act is seen as retaliation
> for a past act; very rarely does violence spring from
> nowhere.
>
> Similiarly, you seem to imply that self-defense is
> always justified. If I am punched in the face, and in
> return shoot the man who did it, is that acceptable?
> If the US had wronged certain Middle Eastern nations,
> does that mean that the terrorist attack on the World
> Trade Center was justifiable?
>
> Michelle, I think you are too much of an idealist. You
> put things in black and white terms that leave no
> room, and yet seem hard to apply to the real world.
> Larry does the same, and seems even further separated
> from real life, and kicks and screams every time
> someone disagrees with him. In reality, no one is
> entirely innocent or guilty in all but rare
> situations. Rather than debate who to blame, we have
> to look at the best way to handle a situation, whether
> it requires diplomacy, force, or some other means of
> response.
>
> Ken Butler
>
> =====
> Yes I know my enemies
> They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
> Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
> Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
> All of which are American dreams
>
> -Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: DEPRESSING - Re: rape.....Re: good gawd, lowell!!
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:42:08 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

MICHELLE,

response below:

on 9/30/02 10:40 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> Thinking of your previous example, though, I would say
> it would probably be "morally acceptable" for Larry's
> town to work with the lecherous town leader in order
> to fight of the greater evil of the Hell's Angels
> gang.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers

the above is a false aletrnative, but i ain't gonna go into that when most
folks in this group ain't even got a moral argument against rape.

when do we use guns is the question most want to ask **and answer**,
explicating no principles, just arguing for "force" to defend "it". ain't
nobody trying to argue that if we humans are smart, we can discover ways to
do without 'em, guns i mean, 'cept for fun.

nope. "it's shoot 'our' enemies", if we can figure out who they are, even
in relation to rape. sick crap. blood and guts all around, with the beat
going on.

LIBERTY IS AN *************IDEA**************!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
GUNS, EXCEPT AS A VERY LAST RESORT FOR THE BRAINLESS WHO FAILED TO ARGUE FOR
IT ANY OTHER WAY.

yeah, anarchy a distant vision. i din't know how distant 'till i read
lowell, robert, ken, and, even, bill a.

IF GUNS ARE THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER, YOU FOLKS OUGHTA BE OILING YOU
50-CALIBERS, AS THE LAST V.C. OF THE ILP WAS.

CHRIST!! this is even more depressing than reading ted on the 'media',

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BILL, THE NITPICKER - Re: force and liberty.., GOOD GAWD!!
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:53:05 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hiya, bill,

long time no talk to.

"force" is typically used as a substitute for initiated aggression.

there ain't too many newspapers who would report that a woman "forced" a
rapist to cease and desist.

yeah, your technically right - i figure you'll take that as a compliment -
but the discussion, on my part at least, was the difference 'tween
self-defense and agression.

you're right about the lp "oath". thanks for pointing that out!

i guess we agree, bill. i was just disappointed that ya didn't tell a
couple folks to fuck off. i guess that's my department, eh?

LF

on 9/30/02 7:23 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

>
>>
>> USING FORCE IN A GENERIC WAY, FAILING TO DISTINGUISH AGRESSION FROM
>> SELF-DEFENSE, IS A FAVORITE WAY FOR MARXISTS AND OTHERS TO ATTEMPT TO
>> CONFUSE THE ISSUE!! YA AIN'T DOIN' THAT ARE YA, LOWELL.
>
> Force is force. It is just a tool, like a screwdriver, or an arm, or
> even a finger or pen. What you *do* with that tool (i.e. force) is a
> separate matter, but that does not make it not force. The confusion
> comes when people faile to understand that. When people fail to
> understand what force is, they begin a slippery slope of what is
> agression, or what is acceptable.
>
> For example, the LP oath is not to not use force, but to not use force
> *for a particular purpose*. The distinction is extremely important.
>
> Force, like fire, is a useful tool .. and a horrible master. Kinda like
> a spell checker or politician. ;^)
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: URGENT Alert for Idaho Libertarians
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:00:04 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: URGENT Alert for Idaho Libertarians
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Libertarian Party Announcements <owner-announce@lp.org>
Reply-To: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To: announce@hq.lp.org

URGENT ALERT FOR IDAHO LIBERTARIANS

Dear Idaho Libertarian,

With the General Election fast approaching, you still have a huge
opportunity to help the Libertarian Party in this fall’s elections!

Idaho’s candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in District 2 has
withdrawn, leaving us a vacancy for federal office that can still be
replaced. We’re currently looking for a Libertarian to take his
place.

Why should you run for this office?

* You will help to guarantee that the LP contests a majority of U.S.
House seats nationwide. Accomplishing this in the 2000 election
gained us national press, and credibility as a national political
presence. The last third party to contest a majority of seats for two
elections straight went on to elect governors and congressmen. Your
candidacy will help us to ensure that we become the next party to
accomplish this.

* Your campaign will give half of Idaho’s voters a true choice in this
fall’s congressional elections.

* Your campaign will provide support to Idaho’s already-impressive
slate of over 50 candidates. Remember, the more Libertarian choices a
voter sees on their ballot, the more credibility they give the party,
and the more likely they are to vote for at least one member of our
slate!

Our minimum requirements for being a candidate are as follows:

* You would need to respond to any questionnaires that you receive
from the media or community organizations. If at all possible, you
should attend any candidate forums to which you’re invited. If not,
you should at least respond with regrets. This requirement is to
ensure that all of our candidates improve the party’s reputation
rather than harming it.

* Make sure to fill out any paperwork on time. Your state party is
prepared to keep you up-to-date on this process and help you through
it.

Unfortunately, our window of opportunity for finding a replacement
candidate is quickly closing. If you believe that you can help us
achieve our national goals and help out your entire state slate of
candidates by running for U.S. House District 2, please contact your
Director of Elections, Ryan Davidson, at 208-424-9985 or
lonegunmanradio@aol.com.

Thank you for considering this possibility. I hope you can step
forward -- your candidacy will be an enormous asset to the cause of
liberty.

In liberty,

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director
(202) 333-0008, ext. 227
RonCrickenberger@hq.LP.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:56:55 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

=========================================================
L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
A N D N E W S G R O U P

A Fidonet Backbone Echo

FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

E-MAIL - moderator@liberty-northwest.org
=========================================================

MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002

Liberty Northwest is a moderated Fidonet Backbone echo. Fidonet
Policy applies. The Fidonet TAG is LIB_NW. Fidonet policy is
Contained in the current edition of Policy 4 of the Fidonet
standards. A copy of such Policy will be provided upon request.
In cases of conflict between policy rules for Liberty Northwest
and Fidonet standards, Fidonet Policy hereby supersedes such
policies as contained herein.

PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective of
Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
"free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.

Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the consequences
of such choices once made.

PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is the
goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup, receiving
news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these goals.

Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the Moderator
reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
and Newsgroup.

Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is discouraged,
as are personal attacks against the character of others participating
regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the Golden
Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to respect
you!

This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and appropriate.
In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with here.
Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.

The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
The obvious that are considered necessary:

1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal communication
between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender communication
or begin a thread or discussion.

2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences are
strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
participants can be established within the Conference itself.
If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has to
download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
off a commercial news or mail server.

2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented information
is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.

3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or ideology,
all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with malice,
will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike" behaviour
will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature are
welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
Conference.

4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.

5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
offended by another participant on the conference, a private NETMAIL
message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
issue.

6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
when it becomes necessary to do so.

Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fwd: Neville's Folly.
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:27:55 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's something else to get "larry's" and Frank's shorts in a bundle. :-)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Give War a Chance!

Forwarded from:

Tom Adkins
CommonConservative.com 10/1/02

Neville's Folly

by Tom Adkins
Today is September 30th. Mean anything to you? Probably not. But it's
possibly one of the most significant dates in world history. It marks the
64th anniversary of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain prancing in
front of 10 Downing Street in London, waiving the Munich Treaty like a
trophy, proclaiming, "A British Prime Minister has returned from Germany
bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home
and get a nice quiet sleep." And they did. Hooray! England didn't have to
fight a war!

Within two years, Londoners slept in subway tunnels as Nazi bombers blitzed
English cities.

September 30, 1938, celebrates the most costly appeasement in world
history, as Chamberlain surrendered the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange
for Hitler's promise to stop invading Europe. Hitler immediately understood
England was gutless, and promptly invaded the rest of Europe, then Russia.
Within 7 years, estimates vary between 35,000,000 and 60,000,000 dead, plus
incomprehensible destruction. All because of Chamberlains cowardly
capitulation to a bloodthirsty madman.

If appeasement is the bastard son of diplomacy, hedging is a First Cousin.
Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed there was no solid political reason to take
on Germany or the saber-rattling Japanese until Dec 7, 1941, as 2,388
Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. The next day, Germany and Italy
declared war on America. Finally, FDR had his "direct evidence" of Japanese
and German intentions.

From the schoolyard to the world stage, appeasement and hedging have
created more death, mayhem, and bowed heads of slavery than any other
diplomatic path. It is amazing how often these twin pillars of ignorant
cowardice dominate history. From Northern France to Ireland, rampaging
Vikings raided, raped, and pillaged anything within sailing distance,
demanding and receiving gold for peace. When the gold ran out, the raids
returned until somebody figured out they could build a nice army with all
that gold. Jimmy Carter practically gave the world to the Soviet Union,
then Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush grabbed the politburo's throat and
squeezed until Lenin statues started falling. Israel is currently
experiencing the result of the failed land-for-peace Oslo accords, which
united and incited radical Arab factions to ratchet up violence. Unable to
understand Hitler's threat and unwilling to buck popular opinion of the
unwashed masses, Chamberlain spinelessly bargained for a ! mere 18 months
of temporary peace, rescued by idealistic American men, machines, and
blood. Again.

The stark examples of unchecked hedging also present a deep stain upon the
world fabric: Khmer Rouge. Idi Amin. Rwanda. Eastern Europe. Yet today, as
George Bush faces the greatest threat to world peace, appeasers and hedgers
are running amok. Despite piles of bones and rivers of blood from a century
of appeasement and hedging, the United Nations had to be embarrassed into
tepidly supporting Bush's threat to enforce unfulfilled 11-year old
sanctions upon a terrorist state that refuses to disarm, threatens to
export biological and chemical weapons, and menaces the world with the
nuclear weapons it tries mightily to develop. The choice of pre-emptive
action cannot be more compelling.

Yet fools still wring their hands: Why the hurry? What will happen to the
economy? What could happen to Middle East stability? What will the world
think? The answers to these ludicrous questions are simple: Every day is
closer to Hussein giving terrorists a biological weapon or successfully
assembling a nuclear weapon. The economy will be quite fine when a free
Iraq sells oil on the open market. We want to destabilize the troublemaking
despots who dominate the Middle East (then crush them). And who gives a
damn what the world thinks? We have 3,000 excuses to defend ourselves any
way we see fit.

Today, George W. Bush faces a classic world crisis. Except this time,
America is the prime target. Terrorists reside in half the world's nations,
a dozen actively supporting them. They want to kill us. Yet just like the
terminally nationalistic Europe of the 1930s, the world seems dominated by
foolish leaders who don't grasp the danger, determined to hang separately
rather than hang together. Once again, America must save the world, despite
itself. So be it. That's what makes us great.

So don't just remember this date, celebrate it. Tip your glass to the most
gutless, naive leader in the last century: Neville Chamberlain. And if
anyone asks you if we should be fighting this war, ask them if they
celebrate September 30th.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fwd: But Two Can Play at the Deterrence Game
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:13:29 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's another one that might not bother larry, but will probably irk Frank
to no end.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

"Some Say Deterrence is Enough . . . But Two Can Play at the Deterrence
Game,"
by Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law, http://volokh.blogspot.com,
from the National Review Online, Sept. 27, 2002,

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp

June 23, 2009
Dear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the
Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq.
We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was
simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.
In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons.
Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We
certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go
that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially
amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle
East:
1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to
become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country
against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish
Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are
currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as
well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting
your country.
We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and
that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs
within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you
will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as
probably killing me.
But if you do so - or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or
assassinate me - then this will only assure that my trusted agents will
detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities.
Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will
regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount
of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for
the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your
allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in
their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.
Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing
innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions
during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian
casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military
targets.
And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in
the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many
of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a
preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to
create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy
refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise
concern about preserving life.
Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your
foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq
acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its
leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons
that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my
part.
On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and
I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed
myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring
on myself if I retreated like a coward.
Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my
countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of
martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any
event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe
that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.
And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in
the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the
Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now
and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand
years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years
alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but
I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an
irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.
In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your
own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your
own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you
will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European,
Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of
relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather
than a devastating war.
Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein
* * *
See http://volokh.blogspot.com this week for reactions to some responses
that this article has received.

=============

CENTER-RIGHT is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches constitutional law,
copyright law, and a seminar on firearms regulation at UCLA Law School
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and is organized with the help of
Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/).
Check out (and link to) our Web site, http://www.center-right.org .
Check out also Eugene's Web log, http://volokh.blogspot.com, for daily
commentary on law, politics, and other matters.
Finally, check out Shards: Poems of the War, edited by yours truly,
http://shards-poems.blogspot.com .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S
FEELING!)....
Date: 07 Oct 2002 00:17:57 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 23:12, larry fullmer wrote:

>
> ".....IF I DON'T ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS!", robert wrote.
>
> i percieve this group as aimed at dialog, in a joint search for truth.
> that, bill, means to me that if someone argues for a position they are
more
> or less obligated to respond to questions in relation to that position.

Be consistent, then, and apply that standard to yourself. you have made
many claims, and not defended them in the least. Sorry, insulting and
hoping the other gets killed or raped is not a defense. Until you do,
your expectation that others defend their statements is meaningless; a
double standard.

> PLEASE NOTE, BILL, IN HIS OWN WORDS, ROBERT HAS REFUSED TO DO THAT!!
WONDER
> WHY??!!

Probably because of your refusal to use the proper and accepted
definitions of words (the leading cause of misunderstanding), because
you refuse to see topic changes hen they happen, and because you refuse
to stick to logic and reason, and run off into ad hominem and "hope you
get raped" crap.

> and then, quoting robert again:
>
> "i ran into such a situation last year on DRCtalk. One poster tried to
> back me into a verbal corner on a stupid subject like this (I think it
> was spouse beating, or maybe murder -- real controversial) and I gave a
> sarcastic answer to a leading question of hers, so she quoted out of
> context complaining it to my ISP that it was a death threat!"

So what? I could quote you out of context, or even in context, and
complain that you are making rape threats, as well as death threats.

>
> Sourly By Inert I,
> Robert
>
> "....someone tried to back (him) into a verbal corner on a stupid
> subject...", "like spouse beating, or maybe murder". yeah, right, stupid
> subjects (to which we can add rape)!! robert wouldn't want to be cornered

Larry, it is stupid when you try to make people out to say things they
did not. That is how I read it. Either that or the "stupid like this"
can refer to the tactic used, not the subject.

> on a stupid subject like physical abuse, murder or rape, now would
> he!!!!!!!!! even though he's written from that corner, putting his own
self
> in it, refusing, even, to answer questions.
>
> SORRY YOU'RE FEELING CORNERED, ROBERT, WITH NO ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS!!!!!!
>
> what the fuck do you think about that bill, or do you just like to fight
> with me??!!

Larry, you are the one fighting, the rest of us are discussing. How much
longer do we have before you make genital references? I figure one or
two posts ...

> i wanna quote to you, bill, about "the mind of a rapist" from robert, but
> this message is getting too long, and i ain't found the quote yet.

I've already seen them. You are taking things out of context, out of
proportion, and personal. That is your doing, Mr. Fullmer, not his, not
mine.

> ps: bill, i'll bet a dollar and a dime your wife ain't been reading, and
> that you ain't been consulting with her.

I'd take your bet, but I can't take the money, it is just too easy. No,
that is not a moral, it is a principle. I show what is posted and we
talk about things a lot. Even then, she doesn't have to red all of your
crap; she's seen it for years. While she may not like it sometimes, she
knows my arguments are aimed at logic, and not personal insult. She also
knows how you screw with words, and lay words at other's feet what they
didn't say. You twist other people's words to make them sound like
people they are not. Just like many here have learned. In other words,
you haven't changed. I don't have to show her everything to know how she
will respond to certain things. I know her far better than you ever
will.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi again Bill,

> > PLEASE NOTE, BILL, IN HIS OWN WORDS, ROBERT HAS
> REFUSED TO DO THAT!! WONDER
> > WHY??!!
>
> Probably because of your refusal to use the proper
> and accepted
> definitions of words (the leading cause of
> misunderstanding), because
> you refuse to see topic changes hen they happen, and
> because you refuse
> to stick to logic and reason, and run off into ad
> hominem and "hope you
> get raped" crap.

Actually, I was the one who asked Robert a number of
different times to answer a particular question and he
refused to do so. Larry got angry that Robert kept
evading my question, but the conflict - and discussion
of it - was pretty much between Robert and me (at
least as insofar as the questions Robert wouldn't
answer that Larry is refering to).

Since that particular conflict between Robert and me
has a lot to do with Larry's recent tirades I will
summarize it. And perhaps, Bill, if you agree with
Robert, you can clarify his position for me since he
wouldn't do so.

> > let me praphase robert, from memory: "hey, ya,
> michelle, the rapist just has
> > different values from yours. if you defend
> yourself, in relation to his
> > desires, "you" are "imposing on him, in relation
> to his desires". now,
> > bill, that's a pretty damned accurate paraphrase.
> do you really want to be
> > defending such??!!
>
> I'm not defending it. I see nothing to defend. Your
> blind zealousness
> has hidden the truth from you. What was said is
> accurate. that is not,
> however, the same as saying it is a good thing. Me
> saying my wall is
> white doesn't mean I like that my wall is white, or
> that it SHOULD be.
>
> Until and if such time occurs that all people have
> the same idea and
> there is absolutely zero disagreement, there will
> always be differences
> of opinion, and someone will be imposing something
> on someone else.
> However, not all of it is "bad", just like not all
> use of "force' is bad
> either.

The main thing that had Larry - and me - upset was
Robert's assertion that a woman who defends herself
from being raped is imposing on the rapist JUST AS
MUCH as the rapist is imposing on her by trying to
rape her.

Larry couldn't find the exact quote from Robert, so I
did some digging and turned it up.

This is what I wrote:

She may be asserting her will, but since she has the
"right" to say no to unwanted sexual advances, I don't
see how she is "imposing" herself on the rapist (using
force WITHOUT RIGHT).

Robert's reply was:

Sure...from your (our) point of view. The rapist (or
tax man, or whomever) may have a different idea of
right, and will view it as an imposition.

Now the definition of impose that I found was "to
force (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on
another or others without right or invitation." The
critical part of the definition, in my opinion, is
"without right or invitation." I don't see how using
force can be considered an "imposition" if one is
doing so "with right."

Of course, people can disagree about what "rights"
are, so I pointed out that according to the American
legal system as woman has a "right" to defend herself
from rape. And according to various moral worldviews
- including (I hope!) the generally accepted
libertarian one - that consider self-defense
justified, a woman would also have the "right" to
prevent someone from raping her.

Since Robert thinks a woman is imposing on a rapist by
trying to keep him from raping her, I asked him:

So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
right to use force to prevent a rape, please explain
where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman to
have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have a
right to prevent someone from raping her?

Robert's reply was:

So what? [in regards to the rights I identified] and

I don't think rights are anything but what we make.
It's not like they pre-exist our thinking about them,
like the planets or elements.

Robert's apparent attitudes horrified me and I asked
him to clarify if he really thinks the rapist and
rapee both have equally valid views of what is right.
Since he doesn't believe there are such things as
"rights" and he thinks the rapist and rapee are just
operating from "different views of what is right,"
what basis is he (or could he) use to determine whose
view is more valid? More importantly, if their points
of view are equally valid then what basis is he using
to say rape is "wrong" - or does he even think that's
the case?

Robert NEVER answered the questions or made any
attempt to clarify what he appeared to be saying.
(One time when I asked him he said he didn't have to
give his opinions; the next time he asked what I
thought he was doing but giving his "opinions"? -
never responding to what I'd asked.) At this point
I've given up and don't care anymore; I figure Robert
doesn't have an answer and that's why he refused to
tell me his opinion in the first place.

Still, if you agree with Robert, perhaps you can
clarify his position since he wouldn't.

To repeat, the problem I had was with Robert saying
the rapist and rapee were each equally imposing on the
other. Since he doesn't believe there are such things
as "rights" - by which one can evaluate whether a
particular use of force is an imposition or not - and
both rapist and rapee are just "imposing" under
different views of what is "right," then by what basis
could one logically say that rape is wrong?

Honestly, I don't blame Larry for being disgusted with
Robert for giving the appearance of justifying rape as
just a matter of personal preference - or for being
disgusted with you for apparently agreeing with
Robert. Moreover, I can't see how anyone can call
themselves a libertarian if they can't tell the
difference between initiated agression and self
defense; perhaps if you are indeed in that camp, Bill,
you can enlighten me.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:06:52 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> The main thing that had Larry - and me - upset was
> Robert's assertion that a woman who defends herself
> from being raped is imposing on the rapist JUST AS
> MUCH as the rapist is imposing on her by trying to
> rape her.

Yes. I realized that years ago when I was explaining libertarianism to
some friends. I said (approximately) that libertarians didn't want
anybody to impose on anybody else, but my friend corrected me. He
pointed out that libertarians do want to get their way, and that
imposing our rules on others is an imposition. Forcing others not to
take something from you is still imposing your regime of ownership on
them. I think the definition "to put or set by or as by authority" fits
just fine here. So yes, the person who resists the rapist is imposing
just as "much" (if such things could be measured) as the rapist is
imposing on the would-be rapee.

> Now the definition of impose that I found was "to
> force (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on
> another or others without right or invitation." The
> critical part of the definition, in my opinion, is
> "without right or invitation." I don't see how using
> force can be considered an "imposition" if one is
> doing so "with right."

But if you get to determine what right is, then certainly that's a
putting or setting by authority, no?

> Of course, people can disagree about what "rights"
> are, so I pointed out that according to the American
> legal system as woman has a "right" to defend herself
> from rape.

Then in that case, the legal system, in addition to the person, is
imposing on the rapist.

> So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
> right to use force to prevent a rape, please explain
> where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman to
> have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have a
> right to prevent someone from raping her?

The same place the woman got the right -- from opinion. (Or it could be
that neither one had gotten any right, or that both did.)

> Robert's apparent attitudes horrified me and I asked
> him to clarify if he really thinks the rapist and
> rapee both have equally valid views of what is right.
> Since he doesn't believe there are such things as
> "rights" and he thinks the rapist and rapee are just
> operating from "different views of what is right,"
> what basis is he (or could he) use to determine whose
> view is more valid? More importantly, if their points
> of view are equally valid then what basis is he using
> to say rape is "wrong" - or does he even think that's
> the case?

Is THAT what you were asking? That didn't come across clearly before.
My answer simply is that I analyze cases on the basis of individual
liberty -- the sort of thing we discuss here. Now if you want to probe
the fine structure of my analysis, that's fine, but then you'd have to
ask more specific questions.

Just to even things up, how 'bout I ask you to explain what reasons you
have for thinking rape is wrong? I don't know if you'll be any better
at it than me. BTW, every statement used in justification of an opinion
invites ANOTHER "Why?", so don't think any of us will EVER get to the
bottom of normative issues.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > Now the definition of impose that I found was "to
> > force (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on
> > another or others without right or invitation."
> The
> > critical part of the definition, in my opinion, is
> > "without right or invitation." I don't see how
> using
> > force can be considered an "imposition" if one is
> > doing so "with right."
>
> But if you get to determine what right is, then
> certainly that's a
> putting or setting by authority, no?

I don't get to determine what "right" is; there are
various conceptions of "rights" that different people
ascribe to. This is why I didn't just say a "woman
has a right to prevent herself from being raped" - I
specified where the precedent assuming such a right
comes from (for example, in the American legal system
and in the libertarian concept of self-ownership).

Of course, some "rights" are more logically and/or
empirically defensible than others, so if you'd like
to challenge the validity of particular "rights"
recognized by the American legal system or the
validity of the libertarian "right" to self-ownership
feel free to do so.

> > Of course, people can disagree about what "rights"
> > are, so I pointed out that according to the
> American
> > legal system as woman has a "right" to defend
> herself
> > from rape.
>
> Then in that case, the legal system, in addition to
> the person, is
> imposing on the rapist.

Once again, using force is not "imposing" if one is
doing so "with right." And a legal system is a system
that, among other things, establishes and protects
particular rights.

Now if you want to cite a definition of "impose" that
you think is better than the one I'm using please
present that definition. If you think my
interpretation of the definition of "impose" is wrong,
then please explain how the word should be better
interpreted. Or if you want to try to convince me
that there are "no such things as rights," that's
another avenue you can explore.

I have already told you how and why I'm using the
definition of "impose" that I am; if you want to
convince me that me use of "impose" is wrong then
you're going to have to do better than just continue
to use the word in a sense that conflicts with the
dictionary definition of "impose."

> > So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
> > right to use force to prevent a rape, please
> explain
> > where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman
> to
> > have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have
> a
> > right to prevent someone from raping her?
>
> The same place the woman got the right -- from
> opinion. (Or it could be
> that neither one had gotten any right, or that both
> did.)

The woman didn't get the right from "opinion" - she
got it from both legal and moral sources. Now I'm
sure there are some viewpoints by which a man has a
right to rape a woman (though I'm doubtful that most
will stand up very well to logical or empirical
examination), but you still haven't bothered to
explain what any of those are.

> > Robert's apparent attitudes horrified me and I
> asked
> > him to clarify if he really thinks the rapist and
> > rapee both have equally valid views of what is
> right.
> > Since he doesn't believe there are such things as
> > "rights" and he thinks the rapist and rapee are
> just
> > operating from "different views of what is right,"
> > what basis is he (or could he) use to determine
> whose
> > view is more valid? More importantly, if their
> points
> > of view are equally valid then what basis is he
> using
> > to say rape is "wrong" - or does he even think
> that's
> > the case?
>
> Is THAT what you were asking? That didn't come
> across clearly before.

You'd have a better chance of understanding the
questions I ask if you bother to read and pay
attention to the things I wrote.

> My answer simply is that I analyze cases on the
> basis of individual
> liberty -- the sort of thing we discuss here. Now
> if you want to probe
> the fine structure of my analysis, that's fine, but
> then you'd have to
> ask more specific questions.

That's a perfectly meaningless statement that hardly
qualifies as an "analysis" of anything - and certainly
has no "fine structure" I could probe even if I wanted
to. And it STILL doesn't answer the question of how
you analyze a "case of rape" on the basis of
"individual liberty" (whatever that means to you).

Unless, of course, my analysis of your position is
correct and you 1) think a rapist and rapee are using
equivalent amounts of force, 2) think there are no
such things as rights and - because of this - there
can be no justified uses of force, and 3) think the
rapist and rapee are just operating from differing
views of "right" and - because there are no such
things as rights - there is no objective way to
evaluate which view is more correct. 4) All of which
leads to the conclusion that there is no moral
difference between attempting to rape someone and
preventing oneself from being raped - both are equally
"moral" or "immoral," however one wishes to look at
it.

> Just to even things up, how 'bout I ask you to
> explain what reasons you
> have for thinking rape is wrong? I don't know if
> you'll be any better
> at it than me.

By now my position should be pretty clear and since
you STILL didn't answer my question, I don't see that
I have any obligation to answer your question anyway.
But I will deign to briefly summarize what I've
already said that explains why I think rape is wrong:

- By the non-agression principle, no person has the
right to initiate force against another person.
- Initiations of force are immoral.
- Rape is an initiation of force.
- Rape is immoral.
- By the right of self-ownership, using force in
self-defense is justified.
- Uses of force in self-defense are moral.
- A woman is justified in using force to prevent a
rape and is behaving morally.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:32:16 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> Once again, using force is not "imposing" if one is
> doing so "with right." And a legal system is a system
> that, among other things, establishes and protects
> particular rights.

Thsi reminds me of a few years ago when somebody kept arguing with me
that the taking of money forcibly thru tax law (and doing oher things to
people by law) was "not force" because it was "law".

> Now if you want to cite a definition of "impose" that
> you think is better than the one I'm using please
> present that definition. If you think my
> interpretation of the definition of "impose" is wrong,
> then please explain how the word should be better
> interpreted.

No, I'd rather stop arguing about words. It's pointless. We really
know what we're writing about. Now it's just a matter of trying to win
points by saying so-and-so was using such-and-such a word correctly a
little while ago. I checked Random House and saw that both of our
definitions are correct, although they contradict in certain
circumstances. I don't care.

> The woman didn't get the right from "opinion" - she
> got it from both legal and moral sources.

As if laws and morals came elsewhere that from opinion! Michelle, many
a philosopher has tried to get an "ought" from an "is". It's the pot at
the end of the rainbow of ethics -- you can never get to it. Some have
claimed to have found it; their claims are false.

> > My answer simply is that I analyze cases on the
> > basis of individual
> > liberty -- the sort of thing we discuss here. Now
> > if you want to probe
> > the fine structure of my analysis, that's fine, but
> > then you'd have to
> > ask more specific questions.
>
> That's a perfectly meaningless statement that hardly
> qualifies as an "analysis" of anything - and certainly
> has no "fine structure" I could probe even if I wanted
> to. And it STILL doesn't answer the question of how
> you analyze a "case of rape" on the basis of
> "individual liberty" (whatever that means to you).

What are you asking me now? Are you asking me why I'm a libertarian?
Are you asking me why I have the ideas that I have? At what point in
the regress do you want me to stop?

I'll give you this little tidbit for now: I wouldn't be against rape if
people didn't dislike it. Before, when I thought you were asking me why
I thought people disliked it, I tried to guess, but I don't think that's
what you want to know.

> By now my position should be pretty clear

Yeah -- you THINK it should be. But I haven't yet begun to probe.

> - By the non-agression principle, no person has the
> right to initiate force against another person.

Why is the non-aggression principle any good?

> - Initiations of force are immoral.

What does "immoral" mean, and why are initiations of force that?

> - Rape is an initiation of force.

At what point did the force start? How do you know it's an initiation
in all cases?

> - Rape is immoral.

OK, that would follow if you can establish the stuff above.

> - By the right of self-ownership

Why is self-ownership right?

> using force in self-defense is justified.

Why is justification needed?

> - Uses of force in self-defense are moral.

Yes, that would follow if you could establish what preceded it.

> - A woman is justified in using force to prevent a
> rape and is behaving morally.

To PREVENT a rape, huh? That means the woman is acting without any rape
having occurred. How do you know whether an action prevented a rape?
Even if the rape did not occur, how would you know it also would not
have occurred minus that action?

BTW, this in effect is what GWB is talking about tonight. He's saying
mass destruction which could/would be initiated at some future time by
Iraq can be prevented by necessary action now.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > Once again, using force is not "imposing" if one
> is
> > doing so "with right." And a legal system is a
> system
> > that, among other things, establishes and protects
> > particular rights.
>
> Thsi reminds me of a few years ago when somebody
> kept arguing with me
> that the taking of money forcibly thru tax law (and
> doing oher things to
> people by law) was "not force" because it was "law".

Whether you like it or not, legal systems DO establish
various "rights." The question of the morality of
those rights is, of course, a separate matter.

> > Now if you want to cite a definition of "impose"
> that
> > you think is better than the one I'm using please
> > present that definition. If you think my
> > interpretation of the definition of "impose" is
> wrong,
> > then please explain how the word should be better
> > interpreted.
>
> No, I'd rather stop arguing about words. It's
> pointless. We really
> know what we're writing about. Now it's just a
> matter of trying to win
> points by saying so-and-so was using such-and-such a
> word correctly a
> little while ago. I checked Random House and saw
> that both of our
> definitions are correct, although they contradict in
> certain
> circumstances. I don't care.

I'm not surprised you don't care about using words
correctly. Your lack of concern with accuracy and
specifics has already been made perfectly evident.

> > The woman didn't get the right from "opinion" -
> she
> > got it from both legal and moral sources.
>
> As if laws and morals came elsewhere that from
> opinion! Michelle, many
> a philosopher has tried to get an "ought" from an
> "is". It's the pot at
> the end of the rainbow of ethics -- you can never
> get to it. Some have
> claimed to have found it; their claims are false.

Laws and morals may ultimately come from "opinions;"
however, an opinion that has widespread acceptance -
as indicated by its inclusion in a particular legal or
moral system - is more compelling than a single
person's opinion. Of course, just because an opinion
has the support of tradition and other people doesn't
make it ultimately "correct;" it only means that an
opinion many people share is worthy of more attention
than an opinion only one person holds to.

> > > My answer simply is that I analyze cases on the
> > > basis of individual
> > > liberty -- the sort of thing we discuss here.
> Now
> > > if you want to probe
> > > the fine structure of my analysis, that's fine,
> but
> > > then you'd have to
> > > ask more specific questions.
> >
> > That's a perfectly meaningless statement that
> hardly
> > qualifies as an "analysis" of anything - and
> certainly
> > has no "fine structure" I could probe even if I
> wanted
> > to. And it STILL doesn't answer the question of
> how
> > you analyze a "case of rape" on the basis of
> > "individual liberty" (whatever that means to you).
>
> What are you asking me now? Are you asking me why
> I'm a libertarian?
> Are you asking me why I have the ideas that I have?
> At what point in
> the regress do you want me to stop?

Actually, I did the work of writing out the opinion
that I think you have in the e-mail you responded to.
All you have to do is read through it and tell me if
it's an accurate characterization of your opinions or
not - and if it's not, where I am misunderstanding
you.

I would also be curious about why you're a
libertarian; if you don't believe in the nonagression
principle or self-ownership, if you don't believe in
rights, if you see all uses of force as equivalent,
I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding how
you came to be a libertarian in the first place. (The
only other option I can think of is that maybe you're
a utilitarian.) But considering how difficult it's
been to even get a yes or no answer from you on one
question, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath
waiting for you answer a more complicated one.

> > By now my position should be pretty clear
>
> Yeah -- you THINK it should be. But I haven't yet
> begun to probe.

Ah yes. Further indication that your only interest
here is in pointing out flaws in other people's
statements. You may be completely lost when it comes
to explaining your own opinions, but by golly you can
do a damn good job of critiquing other people's
opinions!

> > - By the non-agression principle, no person has
> the
> > right to initiate force against another person.
>
> Why is the non-aggression principle any good?
>
> > - Initiations of force are immoral.
>
> What does "immoral" mean, and why are initiations of
> force that?
>
> > - Rape is an initiation of force.
>
> At what point did the force start? How do you know
> it's an initiation
> in all cases?
>
> > - Rape is immoral.
>
> OK, that would follow if you can establish the stuff
> above.
>
> > - By the right of self-ownership
>
> Why is self-ownership right?
>
> > using force in self-defense is justified.
>
> Why is justification needed?
>
> > - Uses of force in self-defense are moral.
>
> Yes, that would follow if you could establish what
> preceded it.
>
> > - A woman is justified in using force to prevent a
> > rape and is behaving morally.
>
> To PREVENT a rape, huh? That means the woman is
> acting without any rape
> having occurred. How do you know whether an action
> prevented a rape?
> Even if the rape did not occur, how would you know
> it also would not
> have occurred minus that action?

If you don't know the answers to the above questions
my suggestion would be to go back to Libertarianism
101 - these are concepts educated libertarians should
have at least a passing understanding of, whether they
agree with the concepts or not. Of course, if you do
already understand the concepts (and, well, even if
you don't), I'm certainly not going to take the time -
or waste the bandwidth - trying to explain my
understanding of these complicated concepts to someone
who is incapable of even presenting a comprehensible
opinion of his own.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: pluuze read, bill andersen (goodman, too, CORNERED AS HE'S FEELING!)....
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:44:09 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> > No, I'd rather stop arguing about words. It's
> > pointless. We really
> > know what we're writing about. Now it's just a
> > matter of trying to win
> > points by saying so-and-so was using such-and-such a
> > word correctly a
> > little while ago. I checked Random House and saw
> > that both of our
> > definitions are correct, although they contradict in
> > certain
> > circumstances. I don't care.
>
> I'm not surprised you don't care about using words
> correctly. Your lack of concern with accuracy and
> specifics has already been made perfectly evident.

Oh, I do try to use words correctly and to establish what others are
saying. However, once it becomes clear to all what everyone is saying,
then discussing the meaning of the words further is sophistry.

> Laws and morals may ultimately come from "opinions;"
> however, an opinion that has widespread acceptance -
> as indicated by its inclusion in a particular legal or
> moral system - is more compelling than a single
> person's opinion. Of course, just because an opinion
> has the support of tradition and other people doesn't
> make it ultimately "correct;" it only means that an
> opinion many people share is worthy of more attention
> than an opinion only one person holds to.

So? Where does that get us here? I mean, we don't get much into
discussions of military intervention into Madagascar, because hardly
anyone supports that at this time. Instead we discuss things like
intervention in Iraq, because many people share the opinion that that
would be a good thing, and many share the opinion that that would be a
bad thing. OTOH, hardly anyone think rape should be legal, so what was
the point of bringing it up here? If it was only to make a long,
involved argument that was ultimately tautologic -- that people oppose
rape because people oppose rape -- congratulations, you've succeeded.
But I don't see the value in that.

> > What are you asking me now? Are you asking me why
> > I'm a libertarian?
> > Are you asking me why I have the ideas that I have?
> > At what point in
> > the regress do you want me to stop?
>
> Actually, I did the work of writing out the opinion
> that I think you have in the e-mail you responded to.
> All you have to do is read through it and tell me if
> it's an accurate characterization of your opinions or
> not - and if it's not, where I am misunderstanding
> you.

Sorry, there's been so much correspondence in this thread that I've no
idea which characterization that is. I don't archive this stuff.

> I would also be curious about why you're a
> libertarian; if you don't believe in the nonagression
> principle or self-ownership, if you don't believe in
> rights, if you see all uses of force as equivalent,
> I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding how
> you came to be a libertarian in the first place.

Because I don't like seeing people get hurt. How'd YOU get to be
libertarian?

(BTW, I'm not sure what "how" means in the question above. It could be
asking for a cognitive response, closer to the "why" as in the first
sentence, a justification; or it could be asking for an introspective
psychologic analysis, as seems to be suggested more by the 2nd sentence
above -- what Clarence Carson disparaged in a Freeman article as
"Bulverism" after a character of Lewis's IIRC.)

> > > By now my position should be pretty clear
> >
> > Yeah -- you THINK it should be. But I haven't yet
> > begun to probe.
>
> Ah yes. Further indication that your only interest
> here is in pointing out flaws in other people's
> statements. You may be completely lost when it comes
> to explaining your own opinions, but by golly you can
> do a damn good job of critiquing other people's
> opinions!

Oh, yeah, I forgot, only YOU get to be the Inquisitor! I'm the subject
under the microscope here; I forgot my place.

[MY questions OF MICHELLE snipped]

> If you don't know the answers to the above questions
> my suggestion would be to go back to Libertarianism
> 101 - these are concepts educated libertarians should
> have at least a passing understanding of, whether they
> agree with the concepts or not.

Oh, yeah, sure, I forgot -- YOU get to duck questions, but get to
complain about MY supposed evasions.

> Of course, if you do
> already understand the concepts (and, well, even if
> you don't), I'm certainly not going to take the time -
> or waste the bandwidth - trying to explain my
> understanding of these complicated concepts to someone
> who is incapable of even presenting a comprehensible
> opinion of his own.

Of course not -- you're the Inquisitor, I'm the heretic.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BILL, I'M DAMN TIRED.... (& WORSE IN RELATION TO ROBERT).
Date: 07 Oct 2002 00:28:12 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 01:13, larry fullmer wrote:
> HULLO, BILL,
>
> i looked for the quotes from robert. i didn't find them easily. i got
> tired. either you read 'em and missed the significance, or you didn't
read
> 'em, and drew your conclusions about me. either way, you disappoint me!
>
> let me praphase robert, from memory: "hey, ya, michelle, the rapist just
has
> different values from yours. if you defend yourself, in relation to his
> desires, "you" are "imposing on him, in relation to his desires". now,
> bill, that's a pretty damned accurate paraphrase. do you really want to
be
> defending such??!!

I'm not defending it. I see nothing to defend. Your blind zealousness
has hidden the truth from you. What was said is accurate. that is not,
however, the same as saying it is a good thing. Me saying my wall is
white doesn't mean I like that my wall is white, or that it SHOULD be.

Until and if such time occurs that all people have the same idea and
there is absolutely zero disagreement, there will always be differences
of opinion, and someone will be imposing something on someone else.
However, not all of it is "bad", just like not all use of "force' is bad
either.

> robert, and ken, have been hell bent on arguing against the concept of
> objective truth, or objective morality, now with you backing them up.
well,
> bill, what the hell is the call for liberty but an objective truth, based
on
> objective, rational morality??!!

Liberty is not based on objective truth, it is a derivation. The entire
set of rights is based on derivations in logic. All rights are derived
form an assumption of the right to live.

> they claim liberty must be "IMPOSED"!! what ya think about that word,
bill,
> in relation to liberty??!

In the sense that force is used to prevent others from violating
another's liberty, even if the people involved are unaware of that point
of view, yes there is an imposition of liberty.

>
> so, a few quotes from robert that i did find:
>
> "To cut thru the crap, what I THINK Michelle is asking me is to give my
> reasons why I think rape is a bad thing.
> Rape is bad because people don't like to be raped. As to exactly why
> THAT is, that's hard to say".
>
> REALLY, ROBERT, HARD TO SAY, EH. WELL, FUCKER, IT AIN'T FOR *YOU* TO SAY.
> HUMANS, WITH LIIBERTY, GET TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, FREE FROM VIOLENCE
> AND INITATED AGGRESSION, NO MATTER HOW THE FUCKN HARD IT IS FOR YOU TO
> "SAY".

It isn't for you to say either, Mr. Fullmer. In fact, I recall you
pointing out at a meeting a while back that "Some people like different
thinks".

> BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S
HARD
> TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!

Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.

>
> MICHELLE WROTE:
> > So rapists and murderers are now "very principled"
> > people?
> ROBERT RESPONDED:
> SOME of them are, surely.
>
> and HERE is where bill joined in, arguing about "principle", in relation
to
> rapists and murders!!!!!! jesus h. bill. anything to fight with me.
guess
> your now going to tell me the east coast sniper is "principled"??!!!!!

I can not say, just as you can not. However, to pick a nit, everyone
that is not clinically insane operates by a set of principles. you r
ignorance is in refusing to see that one can do one thing, and have
principles that do not affect that action.

>
> robert wrote:
>
> "Except in anarcho-pacifist versions, liberty is ALWAYS imposed".
>
> yeah, robert, as in a woman defending herself from rape is "imposing' on
the
> rapist!!, to quote you.
>
> robert wrote:
>
> Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."
>
> yup, he did, and you bought the crap, eh. NO CONVICTIONS, EH, ROBERT?!
> THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WASTE YOUR TIME WRITING THIS GROUP. IS IT
> LONLINESS, PROVING YOUR SELF, OR WHAT???!!

Mr. Fullmer, it is a tautology. A convict is by definition, one who has
been convicted. If there are no convictions, there are no convicts.

> AND ROBERT WROTE:
> "Opinions are BY DEFINITION unprovable"!
>
> WELL, ASSHOLE, SINCE YOU REFUSE TO EVEN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT *YOUR*
> OPINIONS, I FIGURE YOU ARE RIGHT IN RELATION TO *YOUR* OPINIONS. IF YA
> CAN'T PROVE 'EM, IF YA CAN'T ARGUE FOR THEM, AND YOU HAVE "NO CONVICTIONS"
> THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU UP TO??!!

Here again,Mr. Fullmer, you initiate verbal and attempt to deceive.
Robert was using the word convictions on one context (courts of law),
and you screwed it around to another (as in a personal dedication).

<snip continued deceit>

> YOU'RE A SICK FUCKER, ROBERT. HAVE I WRITTEN THAT BEFORE? AND NOW BILL
> RISES TO YOUR DEFENSE!!
>
> CHRIST, BILL, GIMMIE SOME SALVATION. I'M GONNA DIE SOON. I DON'T WANT TO
> GO FIGHTING WITH YOU ABOUT "PRINCIPLES" AND THE LACK OF 'EM.

Then use the word(s) properly.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BILL, I'M DAMN TIRED.... (& WORSE IN RELATION TO ROBERT).
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:16:51 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> to put it another way, with the random sniper deaths in the east the
last
> few days: robert could equally have written "hey ya, he just has a
different
> point of view". "defending against him would be 'imposing' on him".

But exactly that IS what people are arguing about! That's approximately
where the discussion started, and you've taken it back there full
circle, flaming and spewing like an idiot all the way.

> Rape is bad because people don't like to be raped. As to exactly why
> THAT is, that's hard to say".
>
> REALLY, ROBERT, HARD TO SAY, EH. WELL, FUCKER, IT AIN'T FOR *YOU* TO
SAY.

Then why was I asked? You're like the parent who asks the kid a
question, and the kid starts to answer, and the parent says, "Shaddup,
who asked you?!"

> YOU'RE A SICK FUCKER, ROBERT. HAVE I WRITTEN THAT BEFORE

I think you have it programmed as a macro key.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BILL, I'M DAMN TIRED.... (& WORSE IN RELATION TO ROBERT).
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:25:22 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:

> > Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."

> Here again,Mr. Fullmer, you initiate verbal and attempt to deceive.
> Robert was using the word convictions on one context (courts of law),
> and you screwed it around to another (as in a personal dedication).

No, it was a deliberate pun. RAW meant that strong opinions can lead to
crime. People become fanatics and get violent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: fuck you, bill, i'm done with you forever....
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:33:29 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill,

with no apology, i'm done with you forever. have fun fighting with robert
and ken. i know you will.

i've given my heart to liberty. and what do it get? arguing with dumbshits
like robert, with you rising to his defense, as ken did.

i'm tired.

fuck-off.

the bannock county chair has just resigned.

retireingly, leaving it to young bucks,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: sick fucker, bill, right along with goodman & ken.....
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 01:19:06 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 10/6/02 11:28 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.

REALLY!!!!!!!!!! DID YA CHECK MW ON THAT!!!!!!!!! OR DO YOU HAVE YOU OWN
DICTIONARY IN RELATION TO SUCH???!!

SICK FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU WIFE LIKES IT, BILL, IT AIN'T RAPE. IT'S JUST FUN AND GAMES.

********all********* rape involves violence, bill!!!!!!!!!!! i figure you
know that!!! christ, no wonder you rose to gooodman's defense!!!!!!!

I FUCKING EXPECT TO NEXT TO READ FROM YOU AND ROBERT, WITH KEN BACKING YOU
UP, THAT NOT "ALL MURDER" INVOLVES VIOLENCE.

CHRIST, I'VE WAY TOO MUCH INTO THIS TO BE WASTING MY TIME ON **PURE**
BULLSHIT!! (AND THAT'S THE BEST I CAN FIND)........

BILLY CLINTON WAS SANE, AS IS GEORGE BUSH, GIVEN WHAT I'VE ENCOUNTERED IN
THIS GROUP, CLAIMING IT HAS ANSWERS (DEFENDING RAPISTS).

RETIRELINGLY,

LF

******************"NOT ALL RAPE INVOLEVES VIOLENCE, MR. FULLMER", BILLY
WROTE***************

JESUS FUCKING H. CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READING THAT FROM ONE OF MY BEST
FRIENDS MAKES ME A PSYCHO IN SPADES!!!!!!!!!!***************

I'D RATHER DESCEND INTO PSYCHOSIS THAN READ SUCH AGAIN.

DESCENDING,

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 01:24:26 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

GOOD GAWD, BILL,

I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!

AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!

WHEN I GET A CHANCE, I'M GONNA LOOK UP YOU WIFE'S E-MAIL ADDRESS, JUST TO
KEEP HER UP TO DATE ON YOUR SICKNESS.

CHRIST!!!!!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"
Date: 07 Oct 2002 11:59:29 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 02:24, larry fullmer wrote:
> GOOD GAWD, BILL,
>
> I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!

And ignorant.

So, Mr. Fullmer two 16 year olds get together in the back seat of car,
full consent is provided. Statutory rape. No violence. Two people get
drunk at party, one passes and out the other has sexual contact with the
other. Rape yes, violence no.

>
> AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!
>
> WHEN I GET A CHANCE, I'M GONNA LOOK UP YOU WIFE'S E-MAIL ADDRESS, JUST TO
> KEEP HER UP TO DATE ON YOUR SICKNESS.

tami@noreboots.com go for it! I'm sure she cold use a good laugh.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
> INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S HARD
> > TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!
>
> Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.

Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
weapons, of course, but by definition they all involve
physical force.

If you think there can be such a thing as nonviolent
rape, you're going to have to come up with some
examples to try to make that statement credible.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:45:35 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> > > BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
> > INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S HARD
> > > TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!
> >
> > Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.
>
> Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
> involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
> weapons, of course, but by definition they all involve
> physical force.
>
> If you think there can be such a thing as nonviolent
> rape, you're going to have to come up with some
> examples to try to make that statement credible.

I think it can easily be understood if one keeps in mind that the threat
of force is not force, just as a picture of an Indian is not an Indian.
I think some of you have in mind that the threat (or promise) of
something is the same as the thing itself. While that may work to some
degree for bonds, it makes sense to have a distinction, else the word
"threat" would have no meaning at all.

So for instance, if person A desires sexual intercourse with person B,
and person B does not desire sexual intercourse with person A but
doesn't fight it, no violence occurs when they have sexual intercourse.

I: Your Bytes R Nil,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > > Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.
> >
> > Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
> > involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
> > weapons, of course, but by definition they all
> involve
> > physical force.
> >
> > If you think there can be such a thing as
> nonviolent
> > rape, you're going to have to come up with some
> > examples to try to make that statement credible.
>
> I think it can easily be understood if one keeps in
> mind that the threat
> of force is not force, just as a picture of an
> Indian is not an Indian.
> I think some of you have in mind that the threat (or
> promise) of
> something is the same as the thing itself. While
> that may work to some
> degree for bonds, it makes sense to have a
> distinction, else the word
> "threat" would have no meaning at all.

Rape is an inherently violent act and ALWAYS uses
force. If some guy holds me down and sticks his dick
in me while I'm saying "no" or trying to push him off
of me or screaming for help, he is not "threatening to
use force" he IS using force.

Honestly, Robert, what do you think "force" is if a
man holding a woman down and pushing his dick into her
body doesn't count as a use of "force"?

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:08:53 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> Honestly, Robert, what do you think "force" is if a
> man holding a woman down and pushing his dick into her
> body doesn't count as a use of "force"?

That IS using force. However, telling her that he will kill her and her
little dog too unless she lies perfectly still is NOT using force, but
would still be a rape.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
> > Honestly, Robert, what do you think "force" is if
> a
> > man holding a woman down and pushing his dick into
> her
> > body doesn't count as a use of "force"?
>
> That IS using force. However, telling her that he
> will kill her and her
> little dog too unless she lies perfectly still is
> NOT using force, but
> would still be a rape.

No, he is still using force and is just threatening
her with more force if she doesn't comply.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:55:26 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> > > Honestly, Robert, what do you think "force" is if
> > a
> > > man holding a woman down and pushing his dick into
> > her
> > > body doesn't count as a use of "force"?
> >
> > That IS using force. However, telling her that he
> > will kill her and her
> > little dog too unless she lies perfectly still is
> > NOT using force, but
> > would still be a rape.
>
> No, he is still using force and is just threatening
> her with more force if she doesn't comply.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
"Go over there. Lie down. Wait for me while I use the bathroom. Don't
move. We will have sexual intercourse in a non-violent way; I hate
rough stuff. If you don't do these things, I'll put poison in the water
that you, your little dog, and the horse you rode in on drink." No
force there, only threats.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 08 Oct 2002 16:33:14 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 01:36, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > > BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
> > INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S HARD
> > > TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!
> >
> > Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.
>
> Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
> involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
> weapons, of course, but by definition they all involve
> physical force.

No, they do not. I have provided examples already.

Violent:
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent
attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : EXTREME,
INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <a
mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit acts of violence
<violent prison inmates>

Note there is nothing about deception there ...

Violence:
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting
illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or
procedure

Rape:
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a
person by force
2 a : sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and
chiefly by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY RAPE b : unlawful
sexual intercourse by force or threat other than by a man with a woman
3 : an outrageous violation

Note 2a. "...without her consent AND chiefly by force OR deception."

Yes, people have indeed been put away for rape by deception. Accordin
the law dictionaries:

Rape
Sex with a woman, other than a wife, without her consent. But
many states have changed this basic definition to include sex
with a minor (with or without consent; also known as statutory
rape), sex with a man without his consent, or exempting men who
force their wives to have sex.

Idaho State Statue (since most of the persons in this thread are in
Idaho) defines rape as follows:

18-6101. RAPE DEFINED. Rape is defined as the penetration, however
slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with the perpetrator's penis
accomplished with a female under either of the following circumstances
1. Where the female is under the age of eighteen (18) years.
2. Where she is incapable, through any unsoundness of mind, whether
temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent.
3. Where she resists but her resistance is overcome by force or
violence.
4. Where she is prevented from resistance by threats of immediate and
great bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution; or by any
intoxicating, narcotic, or anaesthetic substance administered by or with the
privity of the accused.
5. Where she is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and
this is known to the accused.
6. Where she submits under the belief that the person committing the
act
is her husband, and the belief is induced by artifice, pretense or
concealment
practiced by the accused, with intent to induce such belief.
7. Where she submits under the belief, instilled by the actor, that if
she does not submit, the actor will cause physical harm to some person in
the
future; or cause damage to property; or engage in other conduct constituting
a
crime; or accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be
instituted against her; or expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact,
whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or
ridicule.

So, numbers 1,2,4,5,6 and in some aspects number 7 all define means of
rape that involve no violence. **By Definition**. So in fact, by
definition not all rape involves violence. When you boil it down, rape
is having sex with a person w/o their consent. Is it often, or even most
often done with the threat or use of force? Yes. Does that make all rape
violent? No.

Have sex with someone that is very drunk, or stoned, or mentally
incompetent in other ways, and it is rape. By definition in Idaho at
least. Most states have similar definitions.

The more interesting observation (to me) is the fact that by Idaho law,
as demonstrated above, a woman can legally have sex with a man against
his will, or without his consent. Many states have revised their
definitions of rape to include females raping males, and males raping
males. Not Idaho.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 01:36, Michelle wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
> > > INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S HARD
> > > > TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!
> > >
> > > Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.
> >
> > Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
> > involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
> > weapons, of course, but by definition they all
> involve
> > physical force.
>
>
> No, they do not. I have provided examples already.

Yes, but statutory rape - that is, consensual sex with
a woman under the age of 18 - isn't what we've been
talking about. The discussion has been about
nonconsensual sex and, in particular, nonconsensual
sex between adults.

I've been mulling over your other example - of a man
having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and it
does come closer to the idea of "non-violent" rape.
It would almost certainly be a less violent rape than
if the woman was awake. But still, even if the woman
is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
force and, even after thinking about it, it still
seems to me to be a violent act.

The example of a woman being "deceived" into thinking
that the person she's having sex with is her husband
does, however, appear to be an example of a legitimate
rape that would also be nonviolent. Of course, the
reason for the lack of violence would be the fact that
the sex was consensual when it happened - the problem
was that the woman had been defrauded.

And, as you point out, if you're using a legal
definition of rape rather than the definition of
"sexual intercourse without consent," then you're
going to find more examples of "nonviolent" rape -
statutory rape being a prime example. Also, the very
disturbing example you mentioned more recently - where
a woman apparently went willingly to a man's house and
agreed to have sex with him and then accused him of
rape - would be another example of a legal form of
"nonviolent" rape. (This seems to put men in a pretty
difficult predicament: Even if a woman says "yes," how
do you "really" know she wants sex and isn't just
agreeing to intercourse because she things you *might*
threaten her with force if she says no?)

Of course, using the legal definition of "rape" you
may also get actual instances of violent rape - such
as a woman having sex with a man without his consent
or a man having sex with another man without his
consent - that couldn't even be considered "rape" at
all.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

>
> Violent:
> 1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense
> activity <a violent
> attack>
> 2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent
> denunciation> b : EXTREME,
> INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>
> 3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
> 4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of
> self-control <a
> mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit
> acts of violence
> <violent prison inmates>
>
> Note there is nothing about deception there ...
>
> Violence:
> a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or
> abuse (as in effecting
> illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of
> violent treatment or
> procedure
>
> Rape:
> 1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or
> carrying away a
> person by force
> 2 a : sexual intercourse with a woman by a man
> without her consent and
> chiefly by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY
> RAPE b : unlawful
> sexual intercourse by force or threat other than by
> a man with a woman
> 3 : an outrageous violation
>
> Note 2a. "...without her consent AND chiefly by
> force OR deception."
>
> Yes, people have indeed been put away for rape by
> deception. Accordin
> the law dictionaries:
>
> Rape
> Sex with a woman, other than a wife, without
> her consent. But
> many states have changed this basic
> definition to include sex
> with a minor (with or without consent; also
> known as statutory
> rape), sex with a man without his consent,
> or exempting men who
> force their wives to have sex.
>
> Idaho State Statue (since most of the persons in
> this thread are in
> Idaho) defines rape as follows:
>
> 18-6101. RAPE DEFINED. Rape is defined as the
> penetration, however
> slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with
> the perpetrator's penis
> accomplished with a female under either of the
> following circumstances
> 1. Where the female is under the age of
> eighteen (18) years.
> 2. Where she is incapable, through any
> unsoundness of mind, whether
> temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent.
> 3. Where she resists but her resistance is
> overcome by force or violence.
> 4. Where she is prevented from resistance by
> threats of immediate and
> great bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of
> execution; or by any
> intoxicating, narcotic, or anaesthetic substance
> administered by or with the
> privity of the accused.
> 5. Where she is at the time unconscious of the
> nature of the act, and
> this is known to the accused.
> 6. Where she submits under the belief that the
> person committing the act
> is her husband, and the belief is induced by
> artifice, pretense or concealment
> practiced by the accused, with intent to induce such
> belief.
> 7. Where she submits under the belief,
> instilled by the actor, that if
> she does not submit, the actor will cause physical
> harm to some person in the
> future; or cause damage to property; or engage in
> other conduct constituting a
> crime; or accuse any person of a crime or cause
> criminal charges to be
> instituted against her; or expose a secret or
> publicize an asserted fact,
> whether true or false, tending to subject any person
> to hatred, contempt or
> ridicule.
>
> So, numbers 1,2,4,5,6 and in some aspects number 7
> all define means of
> rape that involve no violence. **By Definition**. So
> in fact, by
> definition not all rape involves violence. When you
> boil it down, rape
> is having sex with a person w/o their consent. Is it
> often, or even most
> often done with the threat or use of force? Yes.
> Does that make all rape
> violent? No.
>
> Have sex with someone that is very drunk, or stoned,
> or mentally
> incompetent in other ways, and it is rape. By
> definition in Idaho at
> least. Most states have similar definitions.
>
> The more interesting observation (to me) is the fact
> that by Idaho law,
> as demonstrated above, a woman can legally have sex
> with a man against
> his will, or without his consent. Many states have
> revised their
> definitions of rape to include females raping males,
> and males raping
> males. Not Idaho.
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Anderson
> Linux in Boise Club
> http://www.libc.org
> Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the
> Titanic.
> Amateurs build Linux, professionals build
> Windows(tm).
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:39:29 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> I've been mulling over your other example - of a man
> having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and it
> does come closer to the idea of "non-violent" rape.
> It would almost certainly be a less violent rape than
> if the woman was awake. But still, even if the woman
> is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
> force and, even after thinking about it, it still
> seems to me to be a violent act.

Then are there any non-violent crimes?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > I've been mulling over your other example - of a
> man
> > having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and
> it
> > does come closer to the idea of "non-violent"
> rape.
> > It would almost certainly be a less violent rape
> than
> > if the woman was awake. But still, even if the
> woman
> > is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
> > force and, even after thinking about it, it still
> > seems to me to be a violent act.
>
> Then are there any non-violent crimes?

If a car is stolen when the owner is not around.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 11 Oct 2002 14:27:20 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 01:40, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 01:36, Michelle wrote:
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
> > > > INVOLVED, DID YA, JUST "IT'S HARD
> > > > > TO SAY". SICK FUCKER!!
> > > >
> > > > Not all rape involves violence, Mr. Fullmer.
> > >
> > > Bill, I can't believe you wrote that. ALL rape
> > > involves violence. ALWAYS. Not all rapes involve
> > > weapons, of course, but by definition they all
> > involve
> > > physical force.
> >
> >
> > No, they do not. I have provided examples already.
>
> Yes, but statutory rape - that is, consensual sex with
> a woman under the age of 18 - isn't what we've been
> talking about. The discussion has been about
> nonconsensual sex and, in particular, nonconsensual
> sex between adults.

And I have provided examples, several of rapes that do not involve
statutory as well.

>
> I've been mulling over your other example - of a man
> having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and it
> does come closer to the idea of "non-violent" rape.
> It would almost certainly be a less violent rape than
> if the woman was awake. But still, even if the woman
> is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
> force and, even after thinking about it, it still
> seems to me to be a violent act.

How does that fit the definition of violence or violent? The use of
physical force is not sufficient. For example, I see you provided theft
of a car when the owner is not around as a non-violent crime. It
requires physical force to do so. Lack of consent does not equate with
violence any more than lack of consent for someone to joyride in
another's car w/o consent constitutes violence.

> The example of a woman being "deceived" into thinking
> that the person she's having sex with is her husband
> does, however, appear to be an example of a legitimate
> rape that would also be nonviolent. Of course, the
> reason for the lack of violence would be the fact that
> the sex was consensual when it happened - the problem
> was that the woman had been defrauded.
>
> And, as you point out, if you're using a legal
> definition of rape rather than the definition of
> "sexual intercourse without consent," then you're
> going to find more examples of "nonviolent" rape -
> statutory rape being a prime example. Also, the very
> disturbing example you mentioned more recently - where
> a woman apparently went willingly to a man's house and
> agreed to have sex with him and then accused him of
> rape - would be another example of a legal form of
> "nonviolent" rape. (This seems to put men in a pretty
> difficult predicament: Even if a woman says "yes," how
> do you "really" know she wants sex and isn't just
> agreeing to intercourse because she things you *might*
> threaten her with force if she says no?)

Exactly, which is what was meant by "not all rape is violent or involves
violence". Simply that not all rape *is* violent/violence.

> Of course, using the legal definition of "rape" you
> may also get actual instances of violent rape - such
> as a woman having sex with a man without his consent
> or a man having sex with another man without his
> consent - that couldn't even be considered "rape" at
> all.

Or even a man having it with a woman in a place where it is legally set
that there can be no rape between married couples (or in some cases
"cohabitating" couples). I believe it was North Dakota; there was a case
where the husband had it all on tape, and outright admitted it. He had
her tied up for days, knife was visible, she was threatened, etc..
Convicted? Nope. At that time (dunno if it has changed since then) the
law was such that since they were married, it was not rape.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > I've been mulling over your other example - of a
> man
> > having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and
> it
> > does come closer to the idea of "non-violent"
> rape.
> > It would almost certainly be a less violent rape
> than
> > if the woman was awake. But still, even if the
> woman
> > is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
> > force and, even after thinking about it, it still
> > seems to me to be a violent act.
>
> How does that fit the definition of violence or
> violent? The use of
> physical force is not sufficient. For example, I see
> you provided theft
> of a car when the owner is not around as a
> non-violent crime. It
> requires physical force to do so. Lack of consent
> does not equate with
> violence any more than lack of consent for someone
> to joyride in
> another's car w/o consent constitutes violence.

Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
as an excessive use of physical force. This is
particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
first place - it's really about power and control.
The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
person is conscious during the act or not.

A crime where no person is directly assaulted could be
considered "non-violent": for example, stealing a car
or burglarizing a house while the owner is away. If a
criminal had to physically assault the owner to get
the car or take something from the house it would be a
violent crime; if no person is physically assaulted
during the crime it's "non-violent."

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:04:37 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
> as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
> first place - it's really about power and control.
> The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
> being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
> person is conscious during the act or not.

I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes. Or is that a defining
(for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were about sex it wouldn't
count as a rape?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
> > Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes
> me
> > as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> > particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in
> the
> > first place - it's really about power and control.
> > The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the
> person
> > being raped; the act is directly injurious whether
> the
> > person is conscious during the act or not.
>
> I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes.
> Or is that a defining
> (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were
> about sex it wouldn't
> count as a rape?

No it is not a defining characteristic.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:08:49 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes
> > me
> > > as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> > > particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in
> > the
> > > first place - it's really about power and control.
> > > The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the
> > person
> > > being raped; the act is directly injurious whether
> > the
> > > person is conscious during the act or not.
> >
> > I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes.
> > Or is that a defining
> > (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were
> > about sex it wouldn't
> > count as a rape?
>
> No it is not a defining characteristic.

So then non-violent rapes are possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious,
> strikes
> > > me
> > > > as an excessive use of physical force. This
> is
> > > > particularly true since rape isn't about "sex"
> in
> > > the
> > > > first place - it's really about power and
> control.
> > > > The purpose of a rape is to directly injure
> the
> > > person
> > > > being raped; the act is directly injurious
> whether
> > > the
> > > > person is conscious during the act or not.
> > >
> > > I think that'd be true of some but not all
> rapes.
> > > Or is that a defining
> > > (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it
> were
> > > about sex it wouldn't
> > > count as a rape?
> >
> > No it is not a defining characteristic.
>
> So then non-violent rapes are possible.

The only legitimate example I can think of is Bill's
example where a woman has sex with someone mistakenly
thinking it is her husband.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:08:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Michelle Eilers...

Michelle Eilers wrote:
> > Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
> > as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> > particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
> > first place - it's really about power and control.
> > The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
> > being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
> > person is conscious during the act or not.

You replied:
> I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes. Or is that a defining
> (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were about sex it wouldn't
> count as a rape?

It's about establishing whether or not consent has taken place,
nothing more. Anything beyond that should be considered aggression,
and thereby an initiation of force and trespass against a victim.

I've honestly tried to stay out of this one. It is very perplexing
that so much bandwidth has been generated quibbling over whether or
not "force" is, may, or may not be present when various rapes occur!
At issue here is when someone has been violated in such a way without
giving his/her legal consent to be violated. The only really "grey"
factor that I can surmise that could be present under some
circumstances, is when a sexual act has occurred and "consent" might
be considered legally questionable.

Consent, in this case, is a form of a contract. There are several such
conditions in which I can visualize how this might occur:

1. The victim might be intoxicated or under the influence of such a
substance when a legally binding contract could not be established. I
doubt if many courts of law would recognize such a contract if the
same victim had signed under such influence (say to purchase a home,
car, or other commodity). The degree of intoxication certainly is a
factor of course.

2. Mentally impaired individuals who may not be capable of
understanding the nature, or possible implications of a contract.
Again, the degree of such cognizance to enter into a valid contract by
a victim is another "grey" area. Likely this should be determined on a
case by case basis.

3. Unconscious, or semi-conscious victims have certainly been
violated, sense no consent would be possible in most cases. The
"degree" of any consciousness is yet another "grey" area however.

In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this
as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little doubt
that trespass occurs in every sexual act. Is it lawful trespass, or
did it rather occur as a result of wrongful violation of another
without their legal consent?

Certainly therefore, in this case, physical violence has indeed
occurred, since a person was physically violated without their
consent. This is where the wrongful use of force comes into play. It
is just as physically violent in the event a rape occurs when the
victim does not have the capacity to defend his/her self. The rapist
in this case forced him/herself upon a victim when when the victim
could not mentally or physically defend themselves against the
aggression.

The rape itself is the violent act. Other violent acts might also
simultaneously occur in an otherwise fully capable individual, such as
hitting, subduing, and even binding of the victim. But as long a rape
is itself considered a violent act, whether a victim was mentally
conscious or cognizant of the rape is of little consequence to the
physical and violent nature of the act itself.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:21:21 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

> In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this
> as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little doubt
> that trespass occurs in every sexual act.

The question is going to be important in some contexts. As I explained,
there are people who, for purposes of distinguishing criminal penalties,
eligibility for parole, counting of "strikes", whatever, want to
distinguish violent from non-violent crimes. Presumably that'd include
different treatment between violent and non-violent rapes.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:27:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I wrote:
> > In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> > violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this
> > as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little doubt
> > that trespass occurs in every sexual act.

And you replied:
> The question is going to be important in some contexts. As I explained,
> there are people who, for purposes of distinguishing criminal penalties,
> eligibility for parole, counting of "strikes", whatever, want to
> distinguish violent from non-violent crimes. Presumably that'd include
> different treatment between violent and non-violent rapes.

You left out a lot of stuff here that I previously wrote Robert.
Mainly, most would consider rape itself to be a violent act. In such
context, there is no such thing as a "non-violent" rape! I don't know
how you missed that.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:45:57 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > > In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> > > violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see
this
> > > as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little
doubt
> > > that trespass occurs in every sexual act.
>
> And you replied:
> > The question is going to be important in some contexts. As I
explained,
> > there are people who, for purposes of distinguishing criminal
penalties,
> > eligibility for parole, counting of "strikes", whatever, want to
> > distinguish violent from non-violent crimes. Presumably that'd
include
> > different treatment between violent and non-violent rapes.
>
> You left out a lot of stuff here that I previously wrote Robert.

I quote only that which is relevant to my reply. That's why I tend not
to have over-long messages here.

> Mainly, most would consider rape itself to be a violent act. In such
> context, there is no such thing as a "non-violent" rape! I don't know
> how you missed that.

I didn't "miss" it, any more than you "missed" my saying the contrary in
recent posts, and my already having gone over points that you brought up
belatedly. I saw no purpose in going over that ground again using your
words when their substance had already been anticipated.

Obviously some people would want to make such a distinction for purposes
of determining penalties, and some of those people would make
distinctions between violent and non-violent rapes. The fact that you
make no such distinction has already been noted.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:56:54 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BILL WAS WRONG, SO SAYS ROBERT........
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:50:41 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

SO, BILL,

ROBERT SAYS YOU WERE WRONG, BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO FIGHT WITH ME:

on 10/7/02 9:25 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:
>
>>> Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."
>
>> Here again,Mr. Fullmer, you initiate verbal and attempt to deceive.
>> Robert was using the word convictions on one context (courts of law),
>> and you screwed it around to another (as in a personal dedication).
>
> No, it was a deliberate pun. RAW meant that strong opinions can lead to
> crime. People become fanatics and get violent.

SO, ROBERT, NOT ONLY DO YOU ***STRONGLY*** ARGUE AGAINST RATIONAL MORALITY,
EVEN IN RELATION TO AN **ADULT** WOMAN BEING RAPED (ADULT ADDED FOR BILLIE'S
BENIFIT), YOU ALSO **STRONGLY** ARGUE AGAINST "CONVICTIONS".

WELL, ROBERT, I'M STRONGLY, "CONVICTEDLY" OPPOSED TO THE INITATION OF
VIOLENCE, UNLIKE YOU. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF OPINION, YOU SAY, WITH ALL OF
THEM MORE-OR-LESS EQUAL.

YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. AN ADULT FEMALE, CONVINCED, WITH A CONVICTION, THAT SHE
HAS A RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY, MIGHT (HOPEFULLY) GET VIOLENT IN RELATION TO
DEFENDING HER CONVICTION, AND HER BODY. CONVICTIONS GENERATE PROBLEMS FOR
RAPISTS, EH??!!

BEST NOBODY HAS 'EM BUT YOU!!!!!!!!!, EH??

SO BILL, IN ROBERT'S OWN WORDS, YOU WERE ***WRONG***. CAN YOU FEEL YOU DICK
SHRINKING???????!!!!!!!

SICK FUCKERS!!!!!!!!

LF

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BILL WAS WRONG, SO SAYS ROBERT........
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:07:27 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Bwaahahahahaha! So "larry", you twist Robert's words one way when you
understand them one way and you twist them another when you understand them
in a different way.

ROTFLMAO!

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 16:50 10/07/02 -0700, you wrote:
>SO, BILL,
>
>ROBERT SAYS YOU WERE WRONG, BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO FIGHT WITH ME:
>
>on 10/7/02 9:25 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
>
> > "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:
> >
> >>> Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."
> >
> >> Here again,Mr. Fullmer, you initiate verbal and attempt to deceive.
> >> Robert was using the word convictions on one context (courts of law),
> >> and you screwed it around to another (as in a personal dedication).
> >
> > No, it was a deliberate pun. RAW meant that strong opinions can lead to
> > crime. People become fanatics and get violent.
>
>SO, ROBERT, NOT ONLY DO YOU ***STRONGLY*** ARGUE AGAINST RATIONAL MORALITY,
>EVEN IN RELATION TO AN **ADULT** WOMAN BEING RAPED (ADULT ADDED FOR
BILLIE'S
>BENIFIT), YOU ALSO **STRONGLY** ARGUE AGAINST "CONVICTIONS".
>
>WELL, ROBERT, I'M STRONGLY, "CONVICTEDLY" OPPOSED TO THE INITATION OF
>VIOLENCE, UNLIKE YOU. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF OPINION, YOU SAY, WITH ALL
OF
>THEM MORE-OR-LESS EQUAL.
>
>YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. AN ADULT FEMALE, CONVINCED, WITH A CONVICTION, THAT
SHE
>HAS A RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY, MIGHT (HOPEFULLY) GET VIOLENT IN RELATION TO
>DEFENDING HER CONVICTION, AND HER BODY. CONVICTIONS GENERATE PROBLEMS FOR
>RAPISTS, EH??!!
>
>BEST NOBODY HAS 'EM BUT YOU!!!!!!!!!, EH??
>
>SO BILL, IN ROBERT'S OWN WORDS, YOU WERE ***WRONG***. CAN YOU FEEL YOU
DICK
>SHRINKING???????!!!!!!!
>
>SICK FUCKERS!!!!!!!!
>
>LF
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: my take on the thread
Date: 07 Oct 2002 17:17:37 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 02:28, Michelle wrote:
> Hi again Bill,
>
> > > PLEASE NOTE, BILL, IN HIS OWN WORDS, ROBERT HAS
> > REFUSED TO DO THAT!! WONDER
> > > WHY??!!
> >
> > Probably because of your refusal to use the proper
> > and accepted
> > definitions of words (the leading cause of
> > misunderstanding), because
> > you refuse to see topic changes hen they happen, and
> > because you refuse
> > to stick to logic and reason, and run off into ad
> > hominem and "hope you
> > get raped" crap.
>
> Actually, I was the one who asked Robert a number of
> different times to answer a particular question and he
> refused to do so. Larry got angry that Robert kept
> evading my question, but the conflict - and discussion
> of it - was pretty much between Robert and me (at
> least as insofar as the questions Robert wouldn't
> answer that Larry is refering to).
>
> Since that particular conflict between Robert and me
> has a lot to do with Larry's recent tirades I will
> summarize it. And perhaps, Bill, if you agree with
> Robert, you can clarify his position for me since he
> wouldn't do so.

I can do what I can, as long as you will be very clear about what I
write, since emotion can cloud a judgment all to aesy, as Larry
demonstrates so vividly.

First, as I said earlier, saying that someone has a different point of
view does not equate two or more POVs, nor does it say one or the other
is "right". That is the first and foremost thing to learn.
With that in mind, I'll give my interpretation of what Robert is saying.

> > > let me praphase robert, from memory: "hey, ya,
> > michelle, the rapist just has
> > > different values from yours. if you defend
> > yourself, in relation to his
> > > desires, "you" are "imposing on him, in relation
> > to his desires". now,
> > > bill, that's a pretty damned accurate paraphrase.
> > do you really want to be
> > > defending such??!!
> >
> > I'm not defending it. I see nothing to defend. Your
> > blind zealousness
> > has hidden the truth from you. What was said is
> > accurate. that is not,
> > however, the same as saying it is a good thing. Me
> > saying my wall is
> > white doesn't mean I like that my wall is white, or
> > that it SHOULD be.
> >
> > Until and if such time occurs that all people have
> > the same idea and
> > there is absolutely zero disagreement, there will
> > always be differences
> > of opinion, and someone will be imposing something
> > on someone else.
> > However, not all of it is "bad", just like not all
> > use of "force' is bad
> > either.
>
> The main thing that had Larry - and me - upset was
> Robert's assertion that a woman who defends herself
> from being raped is imposing on the rapist JUST AS
> MUCH as the rapist is imposing on her by trying to
> rape her.
>
> Larry couldn't find the exact quote from Robert, so I
> did some digging and turned it up.
>
> This is what I wrote:
>
> She may be asserting her will, but since she has the
> "right" to say no to unwanted sexual advances, I don't
> see how she is "imposing" herself on the rapist (using
> force WITHOUT RIGHT).
>
> Robert's reply was:
>
> Sure...from your (our) point of view. The rapist (or
> tax man, or whomever) may have a different idea of
> right, and will view it as an imposition.
>
>
> Now the definition of impose that I found was "to
> force (oneself, one's presence or will, etc.) on
> another or others without right or invitation." The
> critical part of the definition, in my opinion, is
> "without right or invitation." I don't see how using
> force can be considered an "imposition" if one is
> doing so "with right."
>
> Of course, people can disagree about what "rights"
> are, so I pointed out that according to the American
> legal system as woman has a "right" to defend herself
> from rape. And according to various moral worldviews
> - including (I hope!) the generally accepted
> libertarian one - that consider self-defense
> justified, a woman would also have the "right" to
> prevent someone from raping her.

Both you and Robert are, in my view correct. you are talking past each
other. The problem I see, is that Robert is talking on a more academic,
or philosophical level. As I see it, Robert is looking more at the
foundational issues, you mention the American legal system, which is
forms somewhat a tautology. A right to self-defense is a right because
someone said so, not because it exists w/o someone saying so. For
example, we don't see cats practicing "rights activism" among
themselves.

Regarding the term "impose" here is the dictionary entry I have for it:
============================================================
Main Entry: im·pose [image]
Pronunciation: im-'pOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): im·posed; im·pos·ing
Etymology: Middle French imposer, from Latin imponere, literally, to put
upon (perfect indicative imposui), from in- + ponere to put -- more at
POSITION
Date: 1581
transitive senses
1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new
restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if
by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies -- C. H.
Plimpton>
2 a : PLACE, SET b : to arrange (as pages) in the proper order for
printing
3 : PASS OFF <impose fake antiques on the public>
4 : to force into the company or on the attention of another <impose
oneself on others>
intransitive senses : to take unwarranted advantage of something
<imposed on his good nature>
- im·pos·er noun
==================

So, we can see by two entries (1a and 4), that yes, indeed there is an
imposition. HOWEVER, that does not mean the woman imposing her will in
this case (actually, you could classify it under 1a as well with that
POV) is bad! It is an important distinction that neither of you are
making.

In fact, the Libertarian idea of codifying rights into a government or
governing arrangement is indeed an imposition, as it "establishes or
applies by authority". Is it bad? I don't think so. maybe because I
arrive at my beliefs about liberty and authority based on a logical
conclusion to the following question: "Since all government or governing
is an imposition if one ideal over another, which is the least
intrusive?".

>
> Since Robert thinks a woman is imposing on a rapist by
> trying to keep him from raping her, I asked him:
>
> So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
> right to use force to prevent a rape, please explain
> where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman to
> have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have a
> right to prevent someone from raping her?
>
> Robert's reply was:
>
> So what? [in regards to the rights I identified] and
>
> I don't think rights are anything but what we make.
> It's not like they pre-exist our thinking about them,
> like the planets or elements.

Here I see him saying that the answer to your question is not simple.
Where do the rights come from? As we've mentioned elsewhere, it depends
on the legal system. Rights are by definition a fabrication of a legal
system of some sort; some arrangement by a group of people to say a
certain belief holds sway or authority. Many, if not most, Libertarians,
such as Mr. Fullmer, find this a horrid concept, primarily because it
exposes a fundamental flaw in human interaction management. So they
react negatively to it. It is another example of the principle vs.
principle contention.

Libertarians do not like government, but want government (of some sort,
government by private companies is still government) to protect their
"rights".

The first concept of "rights" was might makes right. I get to do this
because I can, and you can't stop me. Early tribalism is a prime example
of this.

>
> Robert's apparent attitudes horrified me and I asked
> him to clarify if he really thinks the rapist and
> rapee both have equally valid views of what is right.
> Since he doesn't believe there are such things as
> "rights" and he thinks the rapist and rapee are just
> operating from "different views of what is right,"
> what basis is he (or could he) use to determine whose
> view is more valid? More importantly, if their points
> of view are equally valid then what basis is he using
> to say rape is "wrong" - or does he even think that's
> the case?
>
> Robert NEVER answered the questions or made any
> attempt to clarify what he appeared to be saying.
> (One time when I asked him he said he didn't have to
> give his opinions; the next time he asked what I
> thought he was doing but giving his "opinions"? -
> never responding to what I'd asked.) At this point
> I've given up and don't care anymore; I figure Robert
> doesn't have an answer and that's why he refused to
> tell me his opinion in the first place.

I can't speak to that part of Robert, though I can say I didn't take
those as his opinions. I can say that there are many times I state
things that are in opposition to my opinions, yet people seem to think
everyone/everything is an opinion, and misread it.

>
> Still, if you agree with Robert, perhaps you can
> clarify his position since he wouldn't.
>
> To repeat, the problem I had was with Robert saying
> the rapist and rapee were each equally imposing on the
> other. Since he doesn't believe there are such things
> as "rights" - by which one can evaluate whether a
> particular use of force is an imposition or not - and
> both rapist and rapee are just "imposing" under
> different views of what is "right," then by what basis
> could one logically say that rape is wrong?
>
> Honestly, I don't blame Larry for being disgusted with
> Robert for giving the appearance of justifying rape as
> just a matter of personal preference - or for being
> disgusted with you for apparently agreeing with
> Robert. Moreover, I can't see how anyone can call
> themselves a libertarian if they can't tell the
> difference between initiated agression and self
> defense; perhaps if you are indeed in that camp, Bill,
> you can enlighten me.

One of the problems with the way people use rights, is they use it as an
argument of authority; a logical fallacy. The reliance on that phrase
weakens the argument. I understand that Robert was trying to move beyond
that. Rights as encoded into law, are not terribly useful on a
philosophical discussion on what is bad, good, or indifferent regarding
morality.

I believe he addressed this by saying rape as bad because the rapee
didn't like it, and went from there. Is it complete? Not in my opinion
(and that argument if that were all it was, would be a slippery slope we
don't want to toy with). It is, however, much better -as well as much
more libertarians -- than saying it is wrong because it is a violation
of rights. In a society where people think they have a"right" to health
care (or cheap health care), or a "right" to take my money, the argument
of it being bad because of a rights violation, is weak.

In order to get to the heart of the matter, you have to go further. I
believe Robert was trying to do this, though I could indeed be
incorrect.

It is far to easy to assume that someone saying something that is
different is promoting it. For example, someone can do something morally
wrong, but fully legal. If you point out it is wrong, and I point out is
legal, I am not as a consequence promoting it or agreeing with it,
merely pointing out the legality of it.

By the same token, pointing out that using force to prevent someone from
harming you is still using force, is not saying that the force used in
self-defense is bad, or that the aggressor is somehow morally equal. As
an unrelated analogy, two cleaners can have the same concentration of
active ingredient, and one works the other doesn't. Saying they have the
same active ingredient is not the same as saying they are equal.

There are a great many things we can not prove, and our points of view
on what are right and wrong, are chief among them. Primarily since our
scope of view is so small, relatively speaking. Even though I think that
rape is wrong, I can only show how it can be believed, not that it is
factually, and independent of my conscious application of thought,
wrong. The problem is not the relativity of morality and opinions, and
points of view. The problem is when we fail to acknowledge it, or when
we as a result say "whatever". Multiple points of view exist, but are
not equal.

As a side note, I play devil's advocate frequently (often to my own
positions and arguments a skill I learned in debate competition), though
not on this list. It is far too easy to be misread in email on something
like that.

And one final thing, I defend or attack on this list arguments, not
people. I can point out the logical inconsistencies and incorrect
assumptions/arguments of arguments that say the same thing I believe,
that doesn't mean I am attacking or disagreeing with them, just that the
arguments are wrong. The same goes for the other side.

If an argument is weak, or in state of logical fallacy, I don't care
who's arguing it, or whether I agree with their intention or not. A
logical fallacy is a logical fallacy; a weak argument a weak argument,
an incorrect assertion is still incorrect.

When I got into this thread, it was about principles, what they are/are
not. Much like Robert I rather take it for granted that rape (the
general case, not such things as statutory rape) is wrong, and don't see
much value in arguing that it is wrong. To me, such discussions are
purely academic. What is of value to me is the interaction regarding the
rest of it. Items such as how the three of you have carried on this
discussion/argument, the arguments and terms used/misused, and how it
flows. Where it went, a swell as where it didn't go, are rather
important to someone like myself who studies that type of thing. i study
communication.

That is a large part of why I read on here what I do, and why sometimes
I don't respond until I've seen where it goes (to do so would invalidate
my predictions/hypotheses since I would be involved at that point)..

My opinion on this thread, is that there were some fundamental
assumptions both sides had/have, and that it colored their reading of
the other participants. These assumptions were held as sacred, and thus
never examined. as a result, when one of them was perceived as being
"attacked", it got very vitriolic.

Robert assumed you and Mr. Fullmer were after the same thing as he was,
we can see at this point that was not the case. You and Mr. Fullmer
(more so Mr. Fullmer), that pointing out weak spots in an argument, or
anything less than absolute agreement, was tantamount to a complete
opposition to things left at the assumptions.

Mr. Fullmer assumed that everyone agreed with his idea of what a
principle was, so when he saw someone say that a person to do bad
things, and still be a principled person, he flew off the handle. His
base assumption was not open to question and well, we see the result.

I for one, am very tired of seeing people say "you aren't with me 100%
on this so you aren't a Libertarian". Personally, I take steps to say
the position taken, or the argument made, or the solution proposed may
or may not be libertarian. Ted Turner, for example, is no Libertarian,
but is doing libertarian things. A separation of action and person.

For my part, I generally assume that shown the logic --or lack thereof
-- in an argument, people will tend to see the nature of things better.
Fortunately for me, I learned many years ago that that assumption is
usually not warranted. Thus, while I am frustrated when it happens to be
false, I do not take it personally, and go off insulting people, and
hoping for aggression to come to them.

Anyway, I feel I am rambling, some might say lecturing, at this point,
so I'll shut up for now. If you'd like more specific clarifications,
Michelle, do indeed ask. Some of it may well be OT for this list, but
that doesn't mean we can't take it private.

Hope that helps,
Bill

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> Both you and Robert are, in my view correct. you are
> talking past each
> other. The problem I see, is that Robert is talking
> on a more academic,
> or philosophical level. As I see it, Robert is
> looking more at the
> foundational issues, you mention the American legal
> system, which is
> forms somewhat a tautology. A right to self-defense
> is a right because
> someone said so, not because it exists w/o someone
> saying so. For
> example, we don't see cats practicing "rights
> activism" among
> themselves.

Well, perhaps Robert was trying to get at the a more
philosophical level, but he hardly said enough about
it to convince me that that was the case or to make
his opinions clear.

Robert's main idea seemed to be that he doesn't
believe rights exist in nature and, because of that,
believes there are no such things as rights. Now
whether or not there are truly "natural rights,"
people do in fact have various conceptions of "rights"
and these conceptions can be evaluated to see how
logically or empirically defensible they are.

I'm not saying that simply because a particular right
is codified in the American legal system that that
makes it "ultimately right;" however, I do think that
there is a great deal of evidence at present to
support the idea that a woman has a "right" to defend
herself from rape and I don't think there is much
evidence to support the idea that a man has a "right"
to rape a woman. But Robert was not interested in
evaluating the validity of particular rights in
regards to a woman's right to defend herself from
rape; he simply wanted to dispense with any discussion
of "rights" because he doesn't believe they exist in
nature.

Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
problem results from our definition of the word
"imposed." You and Robert, among others, are using
the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I, among
others, are using the word to mean any "unjustified"
use of force. I think my definition of the word is
most accurate and don't plan on changing the way I'm
using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
definition and don't plan on changing it, either.
People use words to mean different things all the
time; that can't be helped. However, we're obviously
not going to come to any agreement about whether a
woman's use of force in preventing a rape is justified
- thus making that use of force not an imposition - if
you and Robert see all uses of force as impositions
and consider it irrelevant whether the force being
used is justified.

> Since Robert thinks a woman is imposing on a rapist
by
> trying to keep him from raping her, I asked him:
>
> So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
> right to use force to prevent a rape, please explain
> where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman to
> have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have a
> right to prevent someone from raping her?
>
> Robert's reply was:
>
> So what? [in regards to the rights I identified] and
>
> I don't think rights are anything but what we make.
> It's not like they pre-exist our thinking about
them, like the planets or elements.

You:
Here I see him saying that the answer to your question
is not simple. Where do the rights come from? As we've
mentioned elsewhere, it depends on the legal system.
Rights are by definition a fabrication of a legal
system of some sort; some arrangement by a group of
people to say a certain belief holds sway or
authority. Many, if not most, Libertarians, such as
Mr. Fullmer, find this a horrid concept, primarily
because it exposes a fundamental flaw in human
interaction management.

Me:
Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you already
think into Robert's arguments, since that's not what
he said.

Some people believe rights exist in "nature;" other
people assume they can only be derived through logical
analysis. But whether rights exist in nature or not,
we can still evaluate them to see how logically or
empirically defensible they are. To me the above
quote was just an example of Robert attempting to
avoid a dialogue about whether particular conceptions
of rights are defensible (presumably since there
aren't many defensible conceptions of the "right" to
rape), rather than arguing that rights are not
"simple" to identify. After all, I never said - and
don't think - that rights are simplistic or easy to
evaluate.

You:
If an argument is weak, or in state of logical
fallacy, I don't care
who's arguing it, or whether I agree with their
intention or not. A
logical fallacy is a logical fallacy; a weak argument
a weak argument,
an incorrect assertion is still incorrect.

When I got into this thread, it was about principles,
what they are/are
not. Much like Robert I rather take it for granted
that rape (the
general case, not such things as statutory rape) is
wrong, and don't
see
much value in arguing that it is wrong. To me, such
discussions are
purely academic. What is of value to me is the
interaction regarding
the
rest of it. Items such as how the three of you have
carried on this
discussion/argument, the arguments and terms
used/misused, and how it
flows. Where it went, a swell as where it didn't go,
are rather
important to someone like myself who studies that type
of thing. i
study
communication.

That is a large part of why I read on here what I do,
and why sometimes
I don't respond until I've seen where it goes (to do
so would
invalidate
my predictions/hypotheses since I would be involved at
that point)..

Me:
I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
the sense that your primary interest in discussing
things on the list is to critique other people's
opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects so
as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions and
hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
people's communication styles. Hopefully the
discussions will help us all think more clearly and
more logically, but in my opinion logical thinking is
the not the primary goal (after all, this is not a
college philosophy class).

Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
and criticizing other people's statements rather than
presenting or defending his own statements. However,
even though your main interest may be evaluating other
people's logic, you do at least take the time to
support and explain your points and thus talking with
you does not feel like a complete waste of time.

You:
Anyway, I feel I am rambling, some might say
lecturing, at this point,
so I'll shut up for now. If you'd like more specific
clarifications,
Michelle, do indeed ask. Some of it may well be OT for
this list, but
that doesn't mean we can't take it private.

Me:
I do appreciate your reasoned answers to my questions
and, while I think you're giving Robert more credit
than he deserves, I imagine your analysis of his
opinion is probably on the right track.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:20:45 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in small part:

> Robert's main idea seemed to be that he doesn't
> believe rights exist in nature and, because of that,
> believes there are no such things as rights.

No, just that they can be examined in different ways. Automobiles did
not pre-exist human beings inventing them, but that doesn't mean they
don't exist now. Examining laws of nature can be done only by
observation & experiment. Cars can be, and often are, examined that way
too, but they can also be studied as designed & designable machines. It
was not clear what type of analysis you had in mind. In addition, cars
can be critiqued as having good or bad design or manufacturing quality,
because people can make cars any way they want to and care to exercise
the effort; things pre-existing human beings simply are, and such
critiques are inappropriate for them. However, factual statements about
either one are simply that, and should not be understood in normative
terms; by the same token, opinions about either one are simply that, and
should not be taken as universally held or inescapable.

It doesn't do much good to analyze views about rape, because there's not
much of a range of opinion about it. It's about as useful as noting
that cars have wheels, duh! Therefore when someone asks what someone
thinks about rape, that person must be asking a different type of
question than one asking for analysis such as the above.

> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
> things on the list is to critique other people's
> opinions.... Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
> and criticizing other people's statements rather than
> presenting or defending his own statements.

You'll find that's practically always the case when someone quotes and
replies. Usually only the first post on a subject is not of that
nature.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: 08 Oct 2002 17:26:05 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:57, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > Both you and Robert are, in my view correct. you are
> > talking past each
> > other. The problem I see, is that Robert is talking
> > on a more academic,
> > or philosophical level. As I see it, Robert is
> > looking more at the
> > foundational issues, you mention the American legal
> > system, which is
> > forms somewhat a tautology. A right to self-defense
> > is a right because
> > someone said so, not because it exists w/o someone
> > saying so. For
> > example, we don't see cats practicing "rights
> > activism" among
> > themselves.
>
> Well, perhaps Robert was trying to get at the a more
> philosophical level, but he hardly said enough about
> it to convince me that that was the case or to make
> his opinions clear.

Maybe it's just a familiarity with the style of communication, or a
familiarity with *his* style of communication.

>
> Robert's main idea seemed to be that he doesn't
> believe rights exist in nature and, because of that,
> believes there are no such things as rights. Now
> whether or not there are truly "natural rights,"
> people do in fact have various conceptions of "rights"
> and these conceptions can be evaluated to see how
> logically or empirically defensible they are.

Yes, all those are true. We can not prove that a right is a "natural
right". However, that must be taken into account when discussing what
right are and are not.

>
> I'm not saying that simply because a particular right
> is codified in the American legal system that that
> makes it "ultimately right;" however, I do think that
> there is a great deal of evidence at present to
> support the idea that a woman has a "right" to defend
> herself from rape and I don't think there is much
> evidence to support the idea that a man has a "right"
> to rape a woman. But Robert was not interested in
> evaluating the validity of particular rights in
> regards to a woman's right to defend herself from
> rape; he simply wanted to dispense with any discussion
> of "rights" because he doesn't believe they exist in
> nature.

I understood him to say that he was not accepting of an assertion that
the right naturally existed, but I'm not him; he'll have to confirm or
deny my perception of his intent.

>
> Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
> problem results from our definition of the word
> "imposed." You and Robert, among others, are using
> the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I, among
> others, are using the word to mean any "unjustified"
> use of force. I think my definition of the word is
> most accurate and don't plan on changing the way I'm
> using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
> definition and don't plan on changing it, either.

To be fair, it isn't "our" definition of the word. If *I* wrote the
dictionary, it would be much different.

> People use words to mean different things all the
> time; that can't be helped. However, we're obviously
> not going to come to any agreement about whether a
> woman's use of force in preventing a rape is justified
> - thus making that use of force not an imposition - if
> you and Robert see all uses of force as impositions
> and consider it irrelevant whether the force being
> used is justified.

It is irrelevant to the consideration of whether or not is is force or
an imposition, yes. It is totally irrelevant, no. If A shoots B, we do
not need to determine if B was trying to kill A to determine if B was
shot. By the same token, we do not need to determine if a given action
was justified to determine if it was an act of force.

>
>
>
> > Since Robert thinks a woman is imposing on a rapist
> by
> > trying to keep him from raping her, I asked him:
> >
> > So, since you suggest that woman does not have the
> > right to use force to prevent a rape, please explain
> > where the man does get the RIGHT to force a woman to
> > have sex with him and/or why does a woman NOT have a
> > right to prevent someone from raping her?
> >
> > Robert's reply was:
> >
> > So what? [in regards to the rights I identified] and
> >
> > I don't think rights are anything but what we make.
> > It's not like they pre-exist our thinking about
> them, like the planets or elements.
>
> You:
> Here I see him saying that the answer to your question
> is not simple. Where do the rights come from? As we've
> mentioned elsewhere, it depends on the legal system.
> Rights are by definition a fabrication of a legal
> system of some sort; some arrangement by a group of
> people to say a certain belief holds sway or
> authority. Many, if not most, Libertarians, such as
> Mr. Fullmer, find this a horrid concept, primarily
> because it exposes a fundamental flaw in human
> interaction management.
>
> Me:
> Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you already
> think into Robert's arguments, since that's not what
> he said.

Actually, Robert ad I, and others have had this discussion (origin of
rights, etc.) on this list before, so I've seen him say these things
before.

>
> Some people believe rights exist in "nature;" other
> people assume they can only be derived through logical
> analysis. But whether rights exist in nature or not,
> we can still evaluate them to see how logically or
> empirically defensible they are. To me the above

Yes, that can certainly be done, and should well be done every time. But
one can not argue that a right simply is, and expect there to be no
evaluation of it.

...

> You:
> If an argument is weak, or in state of logical
> fallacy, I don't care
> who's arguing it, or whether I agree with their
> intention or not. A
> logical fallacy is a logical fallacy; a weak argument
> a weak argument,
> an incorrect assertion is still incorrect.
>
> When I got into this thread, it was about principles,
> what they are/are
> not. Much like Robert I rather take it for granted
> that rape (the
> general case, not such things as statutory rape) is
> wrong, and don't
> see
> much value in arguing that it is wrong. To me, such
> discussions are
> purely academic. What is of value to me is the
> interaction regarding
> the
> rest of it. Items such as how the three of you have
> carried on this
> discussion/argument, the arguments and terms
> used/misused, and how it
> flows. Where it went, a swell as where it didn't go,
> are rather
> important to someone like myself who studies that type
> of thing. i
> study
> communication.
>
> That is a large part of why I read on here what I do,
> and why sometimes
> I don't respond until I've seen where it goes (to do
> so would
> invalidate
> my predictions/hypotheses since I would be involved at
> that point)..
>
> Me:
> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
> things on the list is to critique other people's
> opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
> opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects so
> as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions and
> hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
> opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
> people's communication styles. Hopefully the

Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately, this observation
and learning process has allowed me to reach more people, and understand
them better. How is that any different than what you intend?

> discussions will help us all think more clearly and
> more logically, but in my opinion logical thinking is
> the not the primary goal (after all, this is not a
> college philosophy class).

It is not the logical thinking that is the goal, but is a foundation.

> Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
> and criticizing other people's statements rather than
> presenting or defending his own statements. However,

Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he has presented
material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to do if only
responding and critiquing. ;)

That isn't to say I do not post "starting" material, just that given my
schedule right now, I don't have time to. You can, however, find an
increasing amount of my original material at <plug type=shameless>
http://www.noreboots.com </plug>.

And, as many would expect, I don't like "me too" posts, thus I don't
post them. In a similar vein, I do not enjoy "preaching to the choir"

> even though your main interest may be evaluating other
> people's logic, you do at least take the time to
> support and explain your points and thus talking with
> you does not feel like a complete waste of time.

That's good. :^)

> Me:
> I do appreciate your reasoned answers to my questions
> and, while I think you're giving Robert more credit
> than he deserves, I imagine your analysis of his

Well, I am rather an optimist. :^)

Bill

"I know less than half of you as well as I should, and like most of you
more than you deserve." .:^) --Bilbo Baggins

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
> > problem results from our definition of the word
> > "imposed." You and Robert, among others, are
> using
> > the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I,
> among
> > others, are using the word to mean any
> "unjustified"
> > use of force. I think my definition of the word
> is
> > most accurate and don't plan on changing the way
> I'm
> > using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
> > definition and don't plan on changing it, either.
>
> To be fair, it isn't "our" definition of the word.
> If *I* wrote the
> dictionary, it would be much different.

Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
"imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.

> > Me:
> > Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you
> already
> > think into Robert's arguments, since that's not
> what
> > he said.
>
> Actually, Robert ad I, and others have had this
> discussion (origin of
> rights, etc.) on this list before, so I've seen him
> say these things
> before.

Then again you are reading things you know Robert
already believes into his statements. My point was
just that Robert didn't include that information in
his post.

> Me:
> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
> things on the list is to critique other people's
> opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
> opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects
so
> as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions
and
> hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
> opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
> people's communication styles. Hopefully the

You:
Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately,
this observation
and learning process has allowed me to reach more
people, and
understand
them better. How is that any different than what you
intend?

Me:
Observing is good; improved communication is good.
Talking about testing hypotheses about communication
on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
unnecessarily arrogant to me.

> Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
> and criticizing other people's statements rather
than
> presenting or defending his own statements.
However,

You:
Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he
has presented
material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to
do if only
responding and critiquing. ;)

Me:
And the above is not inconsistent with what I wrote.
Most of what Robert writes (as far as I've seen) are
criticisms of other people's statements (criticisms
that are usually unexplained or unsupported). He does
sometimes present his opinions - again usually, in my
experience, without much support or explanation - and
he sometimes introduces new material (as, for
instance, with the interesting article on the
nonagression principle that he forwarded to the group
the other day). Indeed, he can and sometimes does
even present opinions that he supports and explains.
But, most of the time, it seems to me, his main
interest is in making other people "wrong" by finding
things to criticize in what they say.

You:
And, as many would expect, I don't like "me too"
posts, thus I don't
post them. In a similar vein, I do not enjoy
"preaching to the choir"

Me:
Certainly there's not a lot of point in just talking
about how much we agree with each other and how we are
all so smart and right in the opinions we all share.
Still, there is just a different feeling when I talk
to some people in the group than when I talk with you
or Robert.

With Robert it's like talking to a wall: I can't
figure out what he means a lot of the time because he
doesn't explain his positions (maybe he just figures
everyone here should, like you, already know what his
opinions are?), asking for clarification is no use
since I often don't get any response to questions I
ask, and he doesn't even appear to pay much attention
to anything I've said in the first place. I'm
starting to think trying to talk to him is just a
complete waste of time.

With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
like you really care about reaching a better
understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
you can criticize in what I say.

On the other hand, when I talk to people like Frank or
Lowell or Ken (just thinking about people I've
discussed things with recently), I feel to a far
greater degree than with you that we're actually
*discussing* a subject - that the goal is to come to a
better understanding of the subject with no one having
to be "absolutely right" and with everyone willing to
alter their positions if better evidence comes along.

At least one other person has told me that it's not
very pleasant discussing things with you because you
just want to criticize, criticize, criticize - making
the other person as "wrong" as possible. (And, no I'm
not talking about Larry - though I imagine with his
statements about how your only goal is "winning" that
he'd agree to the above statement.) I don't know that
impression is really what you intend, but it certainly
feels that way to some of us.

> even though your main interest may be evaluating
other
> people's logic, you do at least take the time to
> support and explain your points and thus talking
with
> you does not feel like a complete waste of time.

You:
That's good. :^)

Me:
Yes it is.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
> > problem results from our definition of the word
> > "imposed." You and Robert, among others, are
> using
> > the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I,
> among
> > others, are using the word to mean any
> "unjustified"
> > use of force. I think my definition of the word
> is
> > most accurate and don't plan on changing the way
> I'm
> > using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
> > definition and don't plan on changing it, either.
>
> To be fair, it isn't "our" definition of the word.
> If *I* wrote the
> dictionary, it would be much different.

Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
"imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.

> > Me:
> > Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you
> already
> > think into Robert's arguments, since that's not
> what
> > he said.
>
> Actually, Robert ad I, and others have had this
> discussion (origin of
> rights, etc.) on this list before, so I've seen him
> say these things
> before.

Then again you are reading things you know Robert
already believes into his statements. My point was
just that Robert didn't include that information in
his post.

> Me:
> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
> things on the list is to critique other people's
> opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
> opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects
so
> as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions
and
> hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
> opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
> people's communication styles. Hopefully the

You:
Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately,
this observation
and learning process has allowed me to reach more
people, and
understand
them better. How is that any different than what you
intend?

Me:
Observing is good; improved communication is good.
Talking about testing hypotheses about communication
on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
unnecessarily arrogant to me.

> Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
> and criticizing other people's statements rather
than
> presenting or defending his own statements.
However,

You:
Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he
has presented
material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to
do if only
responding and critiquing. ;)

Me:
And the above is not inconsistent with what I wrote.
Most of what Robert writes (as far as I've seen) are
criticisms of other people's statements (criticisms
that are usually unexplained or unsupported). He does
sometimes present his opinions - again usually, in my
experience, without much support or explanation - and
he sometimes introduces new material (as, for
instance, with the interesting article on the
nonagression principle that he forwarded to the group
the other day). Indeed, he can and sometimes does
even present opinions that he supports and explains.
But, most of the time, it seems to me, his main
interest is in making other people "wrong" by finding
things to criticize in what they say.

You:
And, as many would expect, I don't like "me too"
posts, thus I don't
post them. In a similar vein, I do not enjoy
"preaching to the choir"

Me:
Certainly there's not a lot of point in just talking
about how much we agree with each other and how we are
all so smart and right in the opinions we all share.
Still, there is just a different feeling when I talk
to some people in the group than when I talk with you
or Robert.

With Robert it's like talking to a wall: I can't
figure out what he means a lot of the time because he
doesn't explain his positions (maybe he just figures
everyone here should, like you, already know what his
opinions are?), asking for clarification is no use
since I often don't get any response to questions I
ask, and he doesn't even appear to pay much attention
to anything I've said in the first place. I'm
starting to think trying to talk to him is just a
complete waste of time.

With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
like you really care about reaching a better
understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
you can criticize in what I say.

On the other hand, when I talk to people like Frank or
Lowell or Ken (just thinking about people I've
discussed things with recently), I feel to a far
greater degree than with you that we're actually
*discussing* a subject - that the goal is to come to a
better understanding of the subject with no one having
to be "absolutely right" and with everyone willing to
alter their positions if better evidence comes along.

At least one other person has told me that it's not
very pleasant discussing things with you because you
just want to criticize, criticize, criticize - making
the other person as "wrong" as possible. (And, no I'm
not talking about Larry - though I imagine with his
statements about how your only goal is "winning" that
he'd agree to the above statement.) I don't know that
impression is really what you intend, but it certainly
feels that way to some of us.

> even though your main interest may be evaluating
other
> people's logic, you do at least take the time to
> support and explain your points and thus talking
with
> you does not feel like a complete waste of time.

You:
That's good. :^)

Me:
Yes it is.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: 09 Oct 2002 09:30:59 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

(oops, went to bed and forgot to hit send ...)

On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 20:51, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > > Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
> > > problem results from our definition of the word
> > > "imposed." You and Robert, among others, are
> > using
> > > the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I,
> > among
> > > others, are using the word to mean any
> > "unjustified"
> > > use of force. I think my definition of the word
> > is
> > > most accurate and don't plan on changing the way
> > I'm
> > > using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
> > > definition and don't plan on changing it, either.
> >
> > To be fair, it isn't "our" definition of the word.
> > If *I* wrote the
> > dictionary, it would be much different.
>
> Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
> just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
> Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
> "imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.
>
Fair enough, and at least you are willing to see that, as opposed to Mr.
Fullmer, who absolutely insists that it is his way, or you are a
fascist.

>
> > > Me:
> > > Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you
> > already
> > > think into Robert's arguments, since that's not
> > what
> > > he said.
> >
> > Actually, Robert ad I, and others have had this
> > discussion (origin of
> > rights, etc.) on this list before, so I've seen him
> > say these things
> > before.
>
> Then again you are reading things you know Robert
> already believes into his statements. My point was
> just that Robert didn't include that information in
> his post.

Well, you asked my opinion, and you got it.

> > Me:
> > I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
> > the sense that your primary interest in discussing
> > things on the list is to critique other people's
> > opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
> > opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects
> so
> > as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions
> and
> > hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
> > opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
> > people's communication styles. Hopefully the
>
> You:
> Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately,
> this observation
> and learning process has allowed me to reach more
> people, and
> understand
> them better. How is that any different than what you
> intend?
>
> Me:
> Observing is good; improved communication is good.
> Talking about testing hypotheses about communication
> on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
> unnecessarily arrogant to me.

Then let me explain.
I test a hypothesis about how someone is going to react, by not saying
anything. That way, I can see if I am right in my understanding if their
position, or their style of communicating. Why is that arrogant? how is
it any less arrogant than, for example "I know you are going to say
<this> since I have said <that>?" or "by definition"?

> > Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
> > of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
> > and criticizing other people's statements rather
> than
> > presenting or defending his own statements.
> However,
>
> You:
> Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he
> has presented
> material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to
> do if only
> responding and critiquing. ;)
>
> Me:
> And the above is not inconsistent with what I wrote.
> Most of what Robert writes (as far as I've seen) are
> criticisms of other people's statements (criticisms
> that are usually unexplained or unsupported). He does
> sometimes present his opinions - again usually, in my
> experience, without much support or explanation - and
> he sometimes introduces new material (as, for
> instance, with the interesting article on the
> nonagression principle that he forwarded to the group
> the other day). Indeed, he can and sometimes does
> even present opinions that he supports and explains.
> But, most of the time, it seems to me, his main
> interest is in making other people "wrong" by finding
> things to criticize in what they say.

Email is a hard medium for understanding. The many nuances of verbal and
somatic communication are gone. Thus, it is more difficult to find out
what someone means, especially if they get emotional and defensive about
it when asked.

Most of the time, Robert is under attack for challenging assumptions
that others hold dear, even when the assumptions are wrong.

> You:
> And, as many would expect, I don't like "me too"
> posts, thus I don't
> post them. In a similar vein, I do not enjoy
> "preaching to the choir"
>
> Me:
> Certainly there's not a lot of point in just talking
> about how much we agree with each other and how we are
> all so smart and right in the opinions we all share.
> Still, there is just a different feeling when I talk
> to some people in the group than when I talk with you
> or Robert.
>
> With Robert it's like talking to a wall: I can't
> figure out what he means a lot of the time because he
> doesn't explain his positions (maybe he just figures
> everyone here should, like you, already know what his
> opinions are?), asking for clarification is no use
> since I often don't get any response to questions I
> ask, and he doesn't even appear to pay much attention
> to anything I've said in the first place. I'm
> starting to think trying to talk to him is just a
> complete waste of time.

For some, it may well be. Not everyone is worth communicating, or trying
to, with for everyone; given certain impasses, or lack of common
understandings to base things from. If you feel it is not worth your
time, don't do it.

> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
> like you really care about reaching a better
> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
> you can criticize in what I say.

It certainly can seem that way. Just as seems all Mr. Fullmer wants to
do is yell at people, call them names, talk about guns and penises and
find a way to eventually say "go ahead, kick me out, I'm used to it" or
"see, you don't agree with ME so YOU must be anti-libertarian." As I
said, for me, logic is the best way to understand, especially on a
medium that has nothing but cold black and white letters. Our bodies
carry out and explain over half of our communication, and here, it is
not present.

I am a logician by nature. As such, my goal is to eliminate logical
fallacies. Does one accuse the doctor of "only" wanting to find cancer
when he does breast examinations? It is not like he *wants* to find
cancer pods, yet nobody pays attention until he does.

> On the other hand, when I talk to people like Frank or
> Lowell or Ken (just thinking about people I've
> discussed things with recently), I feel to a far
> greater degree than with you that we're actually
> *discussing* a subject - that the goal is to come to a
> better understanding of the subject with no one having
> to be "absolutely right" and with everyone willing to
> alter their positions if better evidence comes along.
>
> At least one other person has told me that it's not
> very pleasant discussing things with you because you
> just want to criticize, criticize, criticize - making
> the other person as "wrong" as possible. (And, no I'm
> not talking about Larry - though I imagine with his
> statements about how your only goal is "winning" that
> he'd agree to the above statement.) I don't know that
> impression is really what you intend, but it certainly
> feels that way to some of us.

And I am just fine with that, really. Many people like the way I
communicate, and can understand it, many can not. I'm not here to make
people feel good, I am not here to explain myself or make libertarian
converts. nor am I here to make myself feel good by other people's
opinions. I am here for my understanding. I learn by reading and
watching others. Often times the best way to learn about something is to
shut up and listen/read.

If I can aid others in making their case stronger, that is a nice bonus.
Besides, if someone comes on and keeps saying things that are patently
false, why should I sit here and say "you go, man!"??

At any given moment, nearly every "talkative" member on this list has
either enjoyed my methods (usually when it is "on their side"), or hated
them (usually when they are on the other end).

After all, I get the impression (feeling) when reading you and Mr.
Fullmer's writings on this particular subject that not only have you
made up your minds (which precludes discussion, only allowing lecture),
and to heck with the facts. Also, I've picked up a distinct bias against
men in the thread.

Unfortunately, this bias as led to a lot of laws that are at least as
harmful, if not much more so than rape.

For examples, look at the sexual harassment laws and the paternity/child
support laws. say, for example, that a man and woman divorce and have
four children involved. Years go by, and one comes down with Cerebral
palsy, which leads to genetic testing. As a result of this, it is found
out that of the four, only the oldest was fathered by the man. based in
this, he wants to only pay child support for his own child. Not allowed.

It gets better. Not only is he forced to pay for someone else's children
going forward, but in most cases, the fact that someone was not the real
father, nor even around, doesn't mean they don't have top pay for it. It
doesn't matter to the court system. "all men are bad" rules the courts,
and is directly related to the fact that here in Idaho, only a man can
commit rape, according to the law. Yet somehow, people like Mr Fullmer
would rather spend time casting people into the pit because they have
differing views or opinions, rather than deal with real world liberty
concerns.

Robert had it right that arguing over whether or not rape is inherently
bad is non-productive (I believe he used the word stupid), especially
when crap like what he have in the real world is going on. Despite Mr.
Fullmer's beliefs, the discussions here have little to do with promoting
liberty. Damned near nothing, really. Nobody, despite the fraudulent
claims of Mr. Fullmer, is here claiming rape should be legal. Either one
promotes a change, or the status quo, there is no in between in
discussion. Since nobody is arguing rape should become legal, there is
no liberty implication.

In fact, I, as well as precious few others, have argued for dramtic
improvements to our laws against rape, even though some of them are
removal of classes of rape.

For example, the removal of statutory rape. And no, the argument about
pedophilia doesn't wash. We all know that 99%+ or "statutory rape" is
teenagers in the back seat of a car, or in a hotel, or after the prom.
Pedophilia is a separate crime. In cases where Statutory Rape is
pressed, it is 99%+ of the time, pressed against the male, nearly never
the female. Yet, by the laws in most states, it is illegal for both. in
fact, by the law, if a 17 year old girl who with some makeup and a dimly
lit environment can look in her mid-twenties, obtains a fake a fake id,
goes in to a bar, meets a guy over 21 (no-fake id) and just to be sure
he checks her id and sees it says she is "of age", has sex with him, the
man has no defense.

In that case, a fraud was indeed committed, by the woman. Yet who will
be the one to face charges is mom and dad find out, or some other nosy
buttinski? He will. And by the law, despite his reasonable efforts to
verify what he was doing was legal, he will still lose. She, on the
other hand, walks free. Yet, if you say that she should be charged with
the fraudulent behavior (in fact, she should be charged with rape, since
she used deception to get him to do it with her), you are anti-woman,
and don't understand rape. If you say that we should abolish "statutory
rape", you are labeled a pedophile.

So the question about whether or not someone observes that there are
more than one opinion involved, and then being called "pro-rape" to sum
it up, is very much the same thing.

The bigger issues, IMO, are the ramifications of the legal system's
attitude toward rape and the ramifications of the laws passed as a
result.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > Me:
> > Observing is good; improved communication is good.
>
> > Talking about testing hypotheses about
> communication
> > on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
> > unnecessarily arrogant to me.
>
> Then let me explain.
> I test a hypothesis about how someone is going to
> react, by not saying
> anything. That way, I can see if I am right in my
> understanding if their
> position, or their style of communicating. Why is
> that arrogant? how is
> it any less arrogant than, for example "I know you
> are going to say
> <this> since I have said <that>?" or "by
> definition"?

It's only sounds arrogant when you TELL the "rats"
that you're testing hypotheses on them ;) - or perhaps
when you say so in the middle of a conversation where
the "rats" have gotten the impression (rightly or
wrongly) that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Me:
> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else
is.
> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
> like you really care about reaching a better
> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
> you can criticize in what I say.

You:
It certainly can seem that way. Just as seems all Mr.
Fullmer wants to
do is yell at people, call them names, talk about guns
and penises and
find a way to eventually say "go ahead, kick me out,
I'm used to it" or
"see, you don't agree with ME so YOU must be
anti-libertarian."

Me:
Well, Larry CAN be exceedingly difficult to talk to
sometimes, usually when he gets overly emotional about
a subject and won't listen to what other people are
saying or won't recognize that different views than
his may exist. It's an unfortunate tendency since he
often has interesting things to say - but those ideas
get drowned out by all the screaming and swearing.

Ordinarily I don't get overly bothered by people's
communication styles. In this case, unfortunately, I
think I was sufficiently frustrated by my "surreal"
conversation with Robert that I got more annoyed than
usual by your appearance of arguing for the sake of
arguing or being critical for the sake of being
critical. Hopefully if I just avoid getting into
extended discussions with Robert in the future, I can
avoid such losses of temper.

Me:
> At least one other person has told me that it's not
> very pleasant discussing things with you because you
> just want to criticize, criticize, criticize -
making
> the other person as "wrong" as possible. (And, no
I'm
> not talking about Larry - though I imagine with his
> statements about how your only goal is "winning"
that
> he'd agree to the above statement.) I don't know
that
> impression is really what you intend, but it
certainly
> feels that way to some of us.

You:
And I am just fine with that, really. Many people like
the way I
communicate, and can understand it, many can not.

Me:
Most of the time I do like the way you communicate.
It's only when you seem to just be trying to be
contrary that I get annoyed. (I, other hand, have
noooo annoying qualities whatsoever. ;) )

You:
After all, I get the impression (feeling) when reading
you and Mr.
Fullmer's writings on this particular subject that not
only have you
made up your minds (which precludes discussion, only
allowing lecture),
and to heck with the facts.

Me:
Larry may have his mind made up on a lot of the stuff
we have discussed, but mine certainly isn't (at least
on such matters as the nature of "rights," how to
evaluate the validity of "rights," what "principles"
are, how to determine whether someone is "principled,"
etc.). I certainly have opinions on these various
issues and it's not like I'm going to change them just
because someones tells me to or if someone disagrees
with me. But it's not like my opinions are set in
stone either.

Some of the things we've talked up I do have my mind
pretty well "made up" about - like the definition of
"impose." I think it's sloppy to talk about all
assertions of will or uses of force as "impositions"
and that doing so isn't in keeping with common usage
of the word. But I'm happy enough to "agree to
disagree" if it's obvious no resolution is going to be
reached on a topic. I don't think I've been lecturing
anyone about anything in this thread. (Well, okay,
maybe I've "lectured" Robert about needing to support
his points, but I guess that lecturing tendency is a
hazard of my job: I'm always telling my students that
the statements in their essays need to "be more
specific," "explained further," or "be better
supported.")

You:
Also, I've picked up a distinct bias
against
men in the thread.

Me:
Rape is primarily a male crime - so I guess talking
about it may seem to be "male bashing." But even
though I find it deplorable how frequently men rape
women, that doesn't mean I'm anti-men. And it
certainly doesn't mean that I'm unaware of or don't
care about legal biases against men or various
negative social attitudes about men.

(One of the essays I assign my students to write deals
with social pressures people face. Usually with that
assignment I get LOTS of essays from students -
usually female, but sometimes even male - about the
pressures women face to be thin and/or beautiful.
This is definitely a major pressure women face.
However, I have never ONCE received an essay from a
student about the enormous social pressures men face
to earn money, earn status, and/or be "successful."
And I think the pressure on men to succeed is just as
strong as the pressure on women to be physically
attractive. Unfortunately, most people don't even
seem to realize that men DO face that pressure.)

You:
Robert had it right that arguing over whether or not
rape is inherently
bad is non-productive (I believe he used the word
stupid), especially
when crap like what he have in the real world is going
on. Despite Mr.
Fullmer's beliefs, the discussions here have little to
do with
promoting
liberty. Damned near nothing, really. Nobody, despite
the fraudulent
claims of Mr. Fullmer, is here claiming rape should be
legal. Either
one
promotes a change, or the status quo, there is no in
between in
discussion. Since nobody is arguing rape should become
legal, there is
no liberty implication.

<snip>

The bigger issues, IMO, are the ramifications of the
legal system's
attitude toward rape and the ramifications of the laws
passed as a
result.

Me:
This has a lot to do with the subjects one is
interested in discussing. I happen to prefer to talk
about basic ethical concepts like what rights are,
what principles are, and how one determines what is
moral or not. I'm not terribly interested in talking
about specific contemporay matters (like foreign
policy) and a discussion of rape laws would just bore
me. I might read posts on foreign policy or rape
laws, but it's highly unlikely that I'd reply unless
the conversation took an interested turn (into, say, a
discussion of the nature of anarchism).

This discussion about "rape" has - as Larry said last
night - in his and my opinion really been a discussion
about ethics and fundamental principles. If you and
Robert aren't terribly interested in talking about
such topics, it's unfortunate that you got sucked into
the discussion.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: my take on the thread
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:33:41 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in small part:

> (Well, okay,
> maybe I've "lectured" Robert about needing to support
> his points, but I guess that lecturing tendency is a
> hazard of my job: I'm always telling my students that
> the statements in their essays need to "be more
> specific," "explained further," or "be better
> supported.")

At least that's better than with my students. Too often I wind up
telling them I can't even figure out what they mean, or that they
include too many IRRELEVANT details.

http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/teach

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bill, you asshole!!!!- Re: "NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:36:45 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

BILL,

interspersed:

on 10/7/02 10:59 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 02:24, larry fullmer wrote:
>> GOOD GAWD, BILL,
>>
>> I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!
>
> And ignorant.

ohh, bill, you are soooo free with compliments!!
>
> So, Mr. Fullmer two 16 year olds get together in the back seat of car,
> full consent is provided. Statutory rape. No violence.

i figure you know i was not talking about "statutory rape", but you win, on
a technicality. DOESN'T THAT MAKE YA FEEL WONDERFUL, BILL, GIVEN THE
WINNING WAS YOUR ONE AND ONLY GOAL, EVEN IN A DISCUSSION OF THE EVIL OF
RAPE!! I FIGURE YOU KNOW I WAS TALKING ABOUT CONSENT!!

> Two people get
> drunk at party, one passes and out the other has sexual contact with the
> other. Rape yes, violence no.

UHHH, BILL, WITH NO CONSENT, IT ***IS*** A VIOLENT ACT. CONSIDER THIS, YOU
GET DRUNK, PASS OUT, AND SOMEBODY STEALS YOU CAR. WHAT KIND OF AN ACT IS
THAT?? I KNOW, YOUR GONNA RESPOND, "NO VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED, THEREFORE I
STILL WIN"!! PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU'RE A SICK ASSHOLE, BILL, FIGHTING WITH ME, RATHER THAN ROBERT, ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT A RAPIST, OR EVEN A SERIAL KILLER, IS "PRINCIPLED"!!!!!

FIGHT WITH SOMEONE ELSE, BILL. I INTEND NEVER TO SPEAK OR WRITE TO YOU
AGAIN UNLESS I GET AN APOLOGY!!!!!

SICK ASSHOLE!!!, I SAY, SHORT AN APOLOGY,

LF

>
>
>>
>> AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!
>>
>> WHEN I GET A CHANCE, I'M GONNA LOOK UP YOU WIFE'S E-MAIL ADDRESS, JUST TO
>> KEEP HER UP TO DATE ON YOUR SICKNESS.
>
> tami@noreboots.com go for it! I'm sure she cold use a good laugh.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, you asshole!!!!- Re: "NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"
Date: 07 Oct 2002 17:33:55 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 17:36, larry fullmer wrote:
> BILL,
>
> interspersed:
>
> on 10/7/02 10:59 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 02:24, larry fullmer wrote:
> >> GOOD GAWD, BILL,
> >>
> >> I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > And ignorant.
>
> ohh, bill, you are soooo free with compliments!!

Yup this and the previous post were compliment free, I acknowledge that.

> >
> > So, Mr. Fullmer two 16 year olds get together in the back seat of car,
> > full consent is provided. Statutory rape. No violence.
>
> i figure you know i was not talking about "statutory rape", but you win,
on

Quit ASS-uming you know what everyone means or knows, that's 99% of your
problem, you assume that you know everyone else better than they do.

> a technicality. DOESN'T THAT MAKE YA FEEL WONDERFUL, BILL, GIVEN THE
> WINNING WAS YOUR ONE AND ONLY GOAL, EVEN IN A DISCUSSION OF THE EVIL OF
> RAPE!! I FIGURE YOU KNOW I WAS TALKING ABOUT CONSENT!!

You make assumptions and to hell with anyone else.

> > Two people get
> > drunk at party, one passes and out the other has sexual contact with the
> > other. Rape yes, violence no.
>
> UHHH, BILL, WITH NO CONSENT, IT ***IS*** A VIOLENT ACT. CONSIDER THIS,
YOU
> GET DRUNK, PASS OUT, AND SOMEBODY STEALS YOU CAR. WHAT KIND OF AN ACT IS
> THAT?? I KNOW, YOUR GONNA RESPOND, "NO VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED, THEREFORE I
> STILL WIN"!! PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and not
all that is violent is wrong. Maybe you knew hat id say because you know
I'm right. Violence? no. Rape? yes. See, even you knew what I meant when
I said not all rape is a violent act, needed violence. Yet you want to
bitch about me. When you say ALL rape is violence, and you know that to
not be the case, you are lying, Mr. Fullmer.

> YOU'RE A SICK ASSHOLE, BILL, FIGHTING WITH ME, RATHER THAN ROBERT, ABOUT
> WHETHER OR NOT A RAPIST, OR EVEN A SERIAL KILLER, IS "PRINCIPLED"!!!!!

More straw men from you Mr. Fullmer. Nobody said anything about a
serial killer, and nobody said a rapist is by definition principled
*because* they are or have been a rapist. We are saying that they can/
have principles in *spite* of that act.

After all, one can say that an alcoholic can't be principled, otherwise
they wouldn't go getting drunk all the time; it being bad for them. The
same could be said about anything that is bad for you, or someone else.

> FIGHT WITH SOMEONE ELSE, BILL. I INTEND NEVER TO SPEAK OR WRITE TO YOU
> AGAIN UNLESS I GET AN APOLOGY!!!!!

Is that a promise?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, you asshole!!!!- Re: "NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:44:46 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> > UHHH, BILL, WITH NO CONSENT, IT ***IS*** A VIOLENT ACT. CONSIDER
THIS, YOU
> > GET DRUNK, PASS OUT, AND SOMEBODY STEALS YOU CAR. WHAT KIND OF AN
ACT IS
> > THAT?? I KNOW, YOUR GONNA RESPOND, "NO VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED,
THEREFORE I
> > STILL WIN"!! PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
not
> all that is violent is wrong.

And that's an important distinction. There's been much discussion in
recent years about reducing penalties for non-violent crimes. If all
crimes by definition involved violence, there'd be no such thing as
crimes not of violence.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: robert takes the title of "all time greatest nitpicker" from
bill....."NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"..
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:50:47 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

THE GREATEST ALL TIME NITPICKER WROTE:

on 10/7/02 5:44 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
> not all that is violent is wrong.

WELL, ROBERT, YOU'RE RIGHT, SORT OF. though why you would want to pick that
nit is not understandable to me. as i see it, everyting that is "wrong" is
a derivative of initated agression, even if violence does not come into play
at the time of the act.

why do i write that? because of the concept of "rights", a moral concept
which you have given no indication you subscribe to. if you break into my
house, or rape a woman with no consent, you have committed and act of
agression, even if she was passed out. if you get caught in the act, or get
caught later, you face potentially 'violent' consequences.

but, here again, you're right, half-assed so. bringing you to justice,
while it may entail violence, is an act of self-defense, and an act of, i've
already said it : JUSTICE!

but you 'laugh' about rational morality!!! the thief, the rapist, they just
have different 'convictions' than their victims. i guess you figure
'victim' is an illigetimate word, given that you have written that a woman
defending herself from rape is "imposing" on the rapist.

and you have yet to write up with your definition of liberty!! and that's
not to mention the fact that you use the word "rights" when it suits your
purposes, and deny any validity to the term when it otherwise suits you.

YOU ARE SUCH A TRULY SICK FUCK ROBERT!! *****NEVER***** with anything
positive to write, **all** you want to do is pick fights, even in defense of
a rapist, to prove how smart you are, and how long you dick is.

a few folks have speculated, privately, that you might truly be a rapist.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

I FIGURE YOU CAN'T EVEN GET IT UP!!!!!!!

NILHISM IS THE 'SHORT DICK' PROBLEM IN SPADES, AND YOU HAVE THE CONDITION
LIKE I'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO 'STAND' FOR ANYTHING,
GIVEN THAT YOU CAN'T GET IT UP. NOPE. ALL YOU GOTTA FUCKING DO IS SIT BACK
AND CRITIQUE ALL THOSE WHO STAND FOR POSITIVES, TELLING THEM, WITH YOUR
NITPICKING, HOW SUPERIOUR YOU ARE, EVEN IN RELATION TO A WOMAN WHO CLAIMS A
RIGHT NOT TO BE RAPED.

SICK FUCKER!!!!!!!!

LF




>
> And that's an important distinction. There's been much discussion in
> recent years about reducing penalties for non-violent crimes. If all
> crimes by definition involved violence, there'd be no such thing as
> crimes not of violence.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: robert takes the title of "all time greatest nitpicker" from
bill....."NOT ALL RAPE INVOLVES VIOLENCE"..
Date: 08 Oct 2002 15:59:32 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:50, larry fullmer wrote:
> THE GREATEST ALL TIME NITPICKER WROTE:
>
> on 10/7/02 5:44 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
>
> > It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
> > not all that is violent is wrong.

Actually that was not Robert.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: NO OUGHT FROM IS, THUS THE RAPIST AND RAPEE ARE EQUALS MORALLY,
WRITES ROBERT.....
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 23:04:11 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ROBERT (SICK FUCK),

BELOW:

on 10/7/02 5:32 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

>> The woman didn't get the right from "opinion" - she
>> got it from both legal and moral sources.
>
> As if laws and morals came elsewhere that from opinion!

HEY, ASSHOLE, LIBERTY IS JUST AN OPINION, AND AN 'IMPOSITON' ON THOSE WHO
DON'T SUPPORT IT, EH?!

AND THE RAPIST'S 'OPINION' IS AS EQUALLY VALID AS THAT OF THE RAPEE,
ACCORDING TO YOU, YOU SICK FUCK.

> Michelle, many
> a philosopher has tried to get an "ought" from an "is". It's the pot at
> the end of the rainbow of ethics -- you can never get to it. Some have
> claimed to have found it; their claims are false.

NO, ROBERT. YOU'RE JUST A SICK FUCKING NIHLIST. THE FIRST "OUGHT FROM IS"
IS YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. IT'S A FUCKING NATURAL LAW!!

YOU CLAIM TO WANT LIBERTY, FOR YOURSELF, WHILE CLAIMING 'NO OUGHT FROM IS'.

AND CLAIMING A RAPED WOMAN HAS NO COMPLAINT, GIVEN THAT ALL IS OPINION, WITH
NO 'OUGHT FROM IS'.

GET COUNSELING, ROBERT. YOU ARE A SICK FUCKER! THAT'S AN "OUGHT FROM AN
IS".

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: WHAT THE FUCK YA GOT AGAINST THE ATF, ROBERT???!!!
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 23:32:17 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

HEY, YA, ROBERT,

WHAT THE FUCK YA GOT AGAINST THE ATF?!

NEAR AS I CAN TELL, WITH 'NO OUGHT FROM IS', YOUR ONLY COMPLAINT IS THAT
THEY HAVE MORE GUNS THAN YOU.

SICK FUCK. THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE, IF LIBERTY IS JUST AN 'OPINION',
AS YOU ARGUE!!!!!

CHRIST, WITH BILL JOINING IN YOUR CHORUS.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:32:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert
<libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <libnw@usa.net>

Greetings again Tim!

Nice to see you writing once again.

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > If they do, it should be obvious, and them telling me that
> > their own consistency in following their morality (or principles) is
> > better than I do myself, seems to at least bring in some question
> > marks in my mind as to their true motives.

You replied:
> I, on the other hand, want to see people of principle
> living a consistent life and not shy about admitting that
> this occurs.

So, what do you suspect is the true measure of "people of principle"?
Are you "sometimes" a hypocrite yourself, and would you admit it if
you were? I'll admit I am sometimes. Do YOU always live a consistent
life, according to your own principles? I know sometimes *I* don't!
So, all I am saying is that you may be expecting too much. If you
can't do it always, why do you believe others should always measure up
to such standards?

> If people are troubled by such talk on TV, there is
> a choice. They can change the channel.

Agreed.

> I think I care more about substance than style.

Until, maybe, when you have to deal with your own inconsistencies. I'm
not going to suggest that you might rape or murder anyone, only saying
such things do happen all the time. So, a great question here might
be, "are your standards higher than what you ought to expect from
someone else, regardless of position?".

> I would rather have someone that told the truth than
> someone who was a hypocrite.

Well, you might recall. What I wrote was that we are ALL hypocrites.
At least often, sometimes, and maybe even always.

> The politics of envy should go out with the trash.

I'm not sure how this fits in exactly, but let me take a stab at it
anyway: So, are you suggesting that "politics" embodies "hypocrisy".
I would agree that it certainly does. Actually, politicians are the
embodiment of hypocrisy, since they are usually prostitutes with no
moral values at all accept what current public opinion polls reveal
might get them re-elected. I say "usually". That's not always the
case to be sure, but most often it obviously is.

Some here, including Bill Anderson, rightly described "motivations"
and even conflicts between "principles" running into each other in
ways that result in behaviour that might be considered morally
objectionable by some.

Tim, I don't know how to rationally answer your question. People are
by nature hypocrites. Individual moral judgements are a subjective
matter between your own mind and those who violate what you believe
"ought" to conform to YOUR morality or principles. When you mix these
two ingredients together you come up with all sorts and several
possibilities:

1. Politicians want to get elected, or re-elected to public office.
They'll sell their soul to the devil to accomplish this.

2. Everyone, is a hypocrite. We never really live by our own
standards, and we are sometimes rarely honest about admitting it.

3. Politicians are part of the "everyone". Some are just a lot more
dressed up and fashionable than the rest of us.

4. Some. Finally are honest enough to really admit the above. I mean,
really admit it under principal! In other words, I "know I am
sometimes, often, always, a hypocrite. I say things that sell for my
own benefit.

Politics is the most reprehensible and dirtiest business on the face
this planet. It happens too within the Libertarian movement. I know
that, and I have experienced it very well, as others have done.

You said you "care more about 'substance than style'. I think it's
very difficult to separate the difference between the two. They
usually go 'hand in glove'. What is "substance"? It is usually
articulated with 'style'. If it isn't, you never really hear anything
about it anyway, so you really have no choices to make in all of this
confusion. All I am saying here is that 'substance' may be disguised
in 'style' and most often is.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:03:27 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in small part:

"Actually, politicians are the embodiment of hypocrisy, since they are
usually prostitutes with no moral values at all accept what current
public opinion polls reveal might get them re-elected. I say `usually'.
That's not always the case to be sure, but most often it obviously
is....

"1. Politicians want to get elected, or re-elected to public office.
They'll sell their soul to the devil to accomplish this."

How does that differ from any other line of work? The customer is
always right.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: robert agrees rape is not just an "opinion"??? - Re: rape and
violence
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 01:55:05 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

response below:

on 10/7/02 5:08 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
>> Honestly, Robert, what do you think "force" is if a
>> man holding a woman down and pushing his dick into her
>> body doesn't count as a use of "force"?
>
> That IS using force. However, telling her that he will kill her and her
> little dog too unless she lies perfectly still is NOT using force, but
> would still be a rape.

really, you say. that would be rape, eh? is that your opinion, or is that
a conviction??!!

and would she, if she chose to defend herself, be "imposing" on the rapist,
as you have written.

and, robert, if there is "no ought from is", in addition to liberty, i'd
damn well like to read you definition of rape, given what crap you have
written about "imposition"!

LF
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: robert *trys* to thread his needle - Re: my take on the thread
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:46:32 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

robert,

interspersed below:

on 10/8/02 6:20 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in small part:
>
>> Robert's main idea seemed to be that he doesn't
>> believe rights exist in nature and, because of that,
>> believes there are no such things as rights.
>
> No, just that they can be examined in different ways.

well, robert, since you have refused to give your definition of liberty and
imposition, how about giving us you definition of "rights" - given that you
"examine (them) in different ways".

the bottomline of this thread is that you are arguing there is "no ought in
isness". thus the the "rights" of the rapist, and the rapee are identical -
no "rights" involved, really, just guns and who has the most of 'em, to
defend their floating "opinion".

> Automobiles did
> not pre-exist human beings inventing them, but that doesn't mean they
> don't exist now.

uhhh, robert, "automobiles", eh? and they indicate your "opinion" in
relation to rights. okay, i'll go with it. yeah, autos were invented, but
in a much more fundamental sense they were **discovered**.

to get a functional auto, humans had to **discover** the laws of nature, not
invent them, and act in a way which was consistent with them. humans had to
discover, and respect, the "natural laws" of physics, chemistry, and even
logic.

try it with making a functional auto **without** respecting the laws of
nature!! and try it with making a functional human society without doing
the same. yet, you claim, there is **no** connection between the laws of
nature and functional human societies. we just "invent" them - with no
discovery necessary - given that there is "no ought in issness" in relation
to autos, or human societies.

> However, factual statements about
> either (cars or humans) one are simply that, and should not be understood
in
> normative terms; by the same token, opinions about either one are simply
that, and should not be taken as universally held or inescapable.

and here, above, you argue that non-consenting rape should not be
universallly despised. even then, robert, there is a "a should" in your
argument. that is inescapable for we humans!!

you argue that all normatives **should** be disrespected as fictions, even
those against rape. it's all just a matter of opinion, with the laws of
nature, and observable human nature, giveing us no guidance.
>
> It doesn't do much good to analyze views about rape, because there's not
> much of a range of opinion about it.

well, robert, you have certainly extendede the "opinion about rape" right to
the point of justifying rape as just another opinion, with the woman who
defends herself "imposing" on the rapist.

NO NORMATIVES, EH?? THAT'S YOUR FUCKING MISSION, ROBERT, NIHLIST THAT YOU
ARE. GIVE THIS GROUP YOUR DEFINITION OF RIGHTS, FROM THE NIHLIST
PERSPECTIVE, EH? I CHALLENGE YOU!!!!!!! IT CAN'T BE DONE. ACCORDING TO
YOU IT JUST COMES DOWN TO WHO HAS THE MOST GUNS, WITH SNIPERS AS FULLY
ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION AS ARE THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE SNIPED.

IT'S JUST A WAR OVER OPINIONS, **NONE** OF 'EM JUSTIFIED!!, WITH LOGIC,
'CAUSE THEY CAN'T BE. WHY?? BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONNECTION 'TWEEN THE LAWS
OF NATURE, HUMAN NATURE, AND THE NORMATIVE. COMES TO MORALITY, AND THE
NORMATIVE, ALL THE CARDS ARE WILD, EH. RAPISTS LIKE READING THAT, SO DO
HITLERS, AND POL POTS.

>> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
>> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
>> things on the list is to critique other people's
>> opinions.... Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
>> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
>> and criticizing other people's statements rather than
>> presenting or defending his own statements.
>
> You'll find that's practically always the case when someone quotes and
> replies. Usually only the first post on a subject is not of that
> nature.

YEAH, WELL, ROBERT, I'VE SEEN NO "FIRST POST" ON A SUBJECT, FROM YOU. YOU
JUST HIDE IN THE SHADOWS 'TILL SOMEONE WRITES SOMETHING POSITIVE, THEN YOU
HAMMER THEM WITH YOUR NIHLISM, KNOWING YOU CAN ALWAYS "WIN" WITH THAT.

LIBERTY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ************NORMATIVE*************** THERE IS.
AND YOU CLAIM NORMATIVES ARE HUMAN FICTION, DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY.

THAT MAKES YOU A FULL-BLOWN SICCKO, ROBERT, EQUATEING THE DESIRES OF THE
RAPIST WITH THE DESIRES OF THE RAPEE, NO NORMATIVES ALLOWED.

GO SNIPE SOMEBODY, NOT THAT THAT IS NOT ALREADY YOUR MISSSION.

FUCK-OFF!

LF

>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: robert *trys* to thread his needle - Re: my take on the thread
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:17:14 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote in part:

> >> Robert's main idea seemed to be that he doesn't
> >> believe rights exist in nature and, because of that,
> >> believes there are no such things as rights.

No, there are such things, but there were no such things absent people's
inventing them. If "in nature" means pre-existing the application of
human design, then yes, they do not exist in nature.

> well, robert, since you have refused to give your definition of
liberty and
> imposition, how about giving us you definition of "rights"

A right is an idea, shared by enough persons in an environment to make
it useful, that a person is owed something. The thing in question may
be as simple as forebearance, for instance.

> the bottomline of this thread is that you are arguing there is "no
ought in
> isness". thus the the "rights" of the rapist, and the rapee are
identical -
> no "rights" involved, really, just guns and who has the most of 'em,
to
> defend their floating "opinion".

No, rights exist, founded on opinion.

> uhhh, robert, "automobiles", eh? and they indicate your "opinion" in
> relation to rights. okay, i'll go with it. yeah, autos were
invented, but
> in a much more fundamental sense they were **discovered**.
>
> to get a functional auto, humans had to **discover** the laws of
nature, not
> invent them, and act in a way which was consistent with them. humans
had to
> discover, and respect, the "natural laws" of physics, chemistry, and
even
> logic.

> try it with making a functional auto **without** respecting the laws
of
> nature!! and try it with making a functional human society without
doing
> the same.

That's true. Knowledge of facts is necessary to make either automobiles
or legal systems. However, such knowledge is not sufficient, and
certainly not sufficient to make any particular invention or legal
system. Starting from the same knowledge one could make automobiles or
refrigerators, a libertarian legal system or a feudal one. They follow
equally from the facts, and from experiment.

> yet, you claim, there is **no** connection between the laws of
> nature and functional human societies. we just "invent" them - with
no
> discovery necessary

Discovery is necessary but not sufficient.

> > However, factual statements about
> > either (cars or humans) one are simply that, and should not be
understood in
> > normative terms; by the same token, opinions about either one are
simply
> > that, and should not be taken as universally held or inescapable.

The fact that they're not universally held is proven by observation.
All it takes is one person to think otherwise, and there's your proof.

> and here, above, you argue that non-consenting rape should not be
> universallly despised.

Where did I write that?

> even then, robert, there is a "a should" in your
> argument. that is inescapable for we humans!!

I'm stating my opinion.

> you argue that all normatives **should** be disrespected as fictions,

No, just recognized as opinions. That's not disrespect, and opinion is
not fictional, unless someone lies about what hir opinions are.

> YEAH, WELL, ROBERT, I'VE SEEN NO "FIRST POST" ON A SUBJECT, FROM
> YOU.

Two ears, one mouth. I think I've contributed plenty of original
thought here and in the many otehr forums in which I participate. I
also forward here items new to this list.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THANKS FOR CLEARING IT UP, BILL......
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:31:22 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

THANKS FOR CLEARING THE BELOW UP, BILL,

on 10/8/02 2:59 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:50, larry fullmer wrote:
>> THE GREATEST ALL TIME NITPICKER WROTE:
>>
>> on 10/7/02 5:44 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
>>
>>> It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
>>> not all that is violent is wrong.
>
> Actually that was not Robert.

THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP, BILL, NITPICKER YOU ARE, WITH "WINNING" YOUR
ONLY GOAL.

PRIOR TO READING ROBERT, AND NOW YOU, I ASSUMED EVERYONE IN THIS GROUP
UNDERSTOOD THE DISTINCTION 'TWEEN VIOLENCE USED AGRESSIVELY, AND VIOLENCE
USED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

"THANKS" FOR INFORMING ME THAT YOU ARE AS FULLY A NIHLIST AS ROBERT IS.

THE DISTINCTION IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. YOU KNOW, SORTA LIKE AN
UN-CONSENTING FEMALE BEING RAPED. BUT EVERYBODY'S PRINCIPLED, SO YOU WRITE,
EVEN SNIPERS.

THANKS FOR YOUR WISDOM, BILL. PUKE!!!!!!!

>>> Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
>>> not all that is violent is wrong.

OHH, SUCH WISDOM FROM A DUMBSHIT, WITH WINNING THE ONLY GOAL.

LF
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: THANKS FOR CLEARING IT UP, BILL......
Date: 08 Oct 2002 17:32:53 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 17:31, larry fullmer wrote:
> THANKS FOR CLEARING THE BELOW UP, BILL,
>
>
> on 10/8/02 2:59 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:50, larry fullmer wrote:
> >> THE GREATEST ALL TIME NITPICKER WROTE:
> >>
> >> on 10/7/02 5:44 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> It was an act of theft. Not everything that is wrong is violent, and
> >>> not all that is violent is wrong.
> >
> > Actually that was not Robert.
>
> THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP, BILL, NITPICKER YOU ARE, WITH "WINNING" YOUR
> ONLY GOAL.

So much for not responding to me ever again.
Gee, I'm a nitpicker for not putting words in other people's mouths.

How about I assign someone else's words to you, and see how quickly you
"nitpick" that you didn't say it.

> PRIOR TO READING ROBERT, AND NOW YOU, I ASSUMED EVERYONE IN THIS GROUP
> UNDERSTOOD THE DISTINCTION 'TWEEN VIOLENCE USED AGRESSIVELY, AND VIOLENCE
> USED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

See, you ASSume everyone agrees with you.

> OHH, SUCH WISDOM FROM A DUMBSHIT, WITH WINNING THE ONLY GOAL.

Well, I'd rather have "winning" as a goal than insulting someone.

I thought you were not talking to me ever again, Mr. Fullmer.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: America tries to protect online freedom worldwide.
Date: 08 Oct 2002 16:44:40 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 21:56, Robert Goodman wrote:
> BTW, not noted by the BBC commentor or Bill is the fact that at least
> France & Germany censor some topics on the nets too. It's not just
> places like Iran & China.

He did state that the UK has censorship "blasphemy against England". He
(the Bill referred to is the commentator in the referenced article on
the BBC, not this Bill -- he's most likely a William ;) did not give the
impression that "China, Singapore and others..." were an exhaustive
list, so I don't see what the complaint is. Iran wasn't even mentioned
in the piece.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: fighting for the helluva it....
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:30:26 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

michelle, bill, robert, group,

michelle, i deeply respect you for the time, patientence, and effort you
have put into communication with, in particular, robert and bill on the
question of rape.

time will tell, but, respect or not, i figure you've wasted it.

truth to tell, i also respect bill for the extensive detail he can provided,
like no one else, on virtually any subject. i only question his motives.

the fact is, all of us involved in this discussion of rape have known from
day one that we are discussing consent, and the lack of it.

all the rest has been quibbleing. even bill, in his last post, wrote "it
all comes down to consent". really? as i see it that is exactly where i
started. fraud is not direct physical violence, as sometimes rape is not,
but it **is** a derivative concept. the broadest concept is aggression,
physical or not, and the defininging principle is the concept of rights.

libertarians know that.

the helluva it is, both bill and robert question, even argue against, the
defining principle of liberty.

robert writes that there are no legitimate normatives. they are all
arbitrary, and a matter of opinion, including his view that a rapee
defending herself is acting no more ligitimatly than the rapist.

choosing to use the word "imposition" the way robert and bill have can only
be done if a person disregards the principle of liberty, or holds that it
has no validity as a normative. that's sick, as i see it, especially if the
said person describes themselves as a libertarian.

this discussion has been about rape, but only as a concrete. in truth,
known by all, it has been a discussion about the validity of rational
normatives, especially the normative of liberty.

we human beings have a normative claim to our own bodies, and liberty, or we
don't. it's a profoundly **moral** question. that **is** what this
bullshit has been about.

robert claims normatives are fictional inventions, even when it comes to a
woman "imposing" on a rapist. i figure bill just got involved it all to
prove how smart he is. i would conclude otherwise were he to write the
group in support of liberty and rational normatives. i figure he won't.

i originally raised the subject of rape because i figured it best
illustrated the valid, rational morality of "normatives". i'm dismayed,
beyond belief, at the response a 'discussion' of rape has generated in this
group. it has truly sickened me!!!

IF **SO CALLED** LIBERTARIANS WANT TO ARGUE THAT A WOMAN DEFENDING HERSELF
FROM RAPE IS "IMPOSING' ON THE RAPIST, WELL, WE HAVE ONE HELLUVA A LONG WAY
TO GO BEFORE WE START WINNING ELECTIONS. *****ONE HELLUVA A LONG
WAY*******!!!!

LIBERTY IS A RATIONAL, MORAL NORMATIVE, DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE, AND
THE NATURE OF HUMANS, OR IT IS A FICTIONAL INVENTION TO BE WON ONLY BY FORCE
AND "IMPOSED" ON OTHERS. "IMPOSED LIBERTY" IS THE SICKEST OXYMORON I'VE
EVER RAN ACROSS. THE VERY CONJUCTION OF WORDS INVALIDATES ANY RATIONAL
DEFINITION OF THE WORD LIBERTY.

**THAT** IS WHY I HAVE REGULARLY REQUESTED THAT ROBERT DEFINE LIBERTY. AND
THAT IS WHY HE HAS REGULARLY REFUSED TO DO SO.

IT WOULD THINK THAT ANY HONEST PERSON IN THIS GROUP WOULD FEEL PERFECTLY
COMFORTABLE PRESENTING THEIR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY. BUT NOT ROBERT. NOPE.
WONDER WHY??!!

LIBERTY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT NORMATIVE OF ALL, WHILE ROBERT ARGUES
NORMATIVES ARE MERE ARBITRARY INVENTIONS - NOTHING BUT "OPINIONS" WHICH ARE
"UNPROVEABLE".

CHRIST!!,

LF






on 10/8/02 7:52 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
>>> Ultimately, though, I think the more fundamental
>>> problem results from our definition of the word
>>> "imposed." You and Robert, among others, are
>> using
>>> the word to mean any use of force. Larry and I,
>> among
>>> others, are using the word to mean any
>> "unjustified"
>>> use of force. I think my definition of the word
>> is
>>> most accurate and don't plan on changing the way
>> I'm
>>> using it. You and Robert obviously prefer your
>>> definition and don't plan on changing it, either.
>>
>> To be fair, it isn't "our" definition of the word.
>> If *I* wrote the
>> dictionary, it would be much different.
>
> Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
> just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
> Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
> "imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.
>
>
>>> Me:
>>> Well, then, I think you're reading stuff you
>> already
>>> think into Robert's arguments, since that's not
>> what
>>> he said.
>>
>> Actually, Robert ad I, and others have had this
>> discussion (origin of
>> rights, etc.) on this list before, so I've seen him
>> say these things
>> before.
>
> Then again you are reading things you know Robert
> already believes into his statements. My point was
> just that Robert didn't include that information in
> his post.
>
>
>> Me:
>> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
>> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
>> things on the list is to critique other people's
>> opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
>> opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects
> so
>> as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions
> and
>> hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
>> opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
>> people's communication styles. Hopefully the
>
> You:
> Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately,
> this observation
> and learning process has allowed me to reach more
> people, and
> understand
> them better. How is that any different than what you
> intend?
>
> Me:
> Observing is good; improved communication is good.
> Talking about testing hypotheses about communication
> on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
> unnecessarily arrogant to me.
>
>
>
>> Robert appears to me to be pretty much the same sort
>> of poster in that his main interest is in critiquing
>> and criticizing other people's statements rather
> than
>> presenting or defending his own statements.
> However,
>
> You:
> Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he
> has presented
> material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to
> do if only
> responding and critiquing. ;)
>
> Me:
> And the above is not inconsistent with what I wrote.
> Most of what Robert writes (as far as I've seen) are
> criticisms of other people's statements (criticisms
> that are usually unexplained or unsupported). He does
> sometimes present his opinions - again usually, in my
> experience, without much support or explanation - and
> he sometimes introduces new material (as, for
> instance, with the interesting article on the
> nonagression principle that he forwarded to the group
> the other day). Indeed, he can and sometimes does
> even present opinions that he supports and explains.
> But, most of the time, it seems to me, his main
> interest is in making other people "wrong" by finding
> things to criticize in what they say.
>
>
> You:
> And, as many would expect, I don't like "me too"
> posts, thus I don't
> post them. In a similar vein, I do not enjoy
> "preaching to the choir"
>
> Me:
> Certainly there's not a lot of point in just talking
> about how much we agree with each other and how we are
> all so smart and right in the opinions we all share.
> Still, there is just a different feeling when I talk
> to some people in the group than when I talk with you
> or Robert.
>
> With Robert it's like talking to a wall: I can't
> figure out what he means a lot of the time because he
> doesn't explain his positions (maybe he just figures
> everyone here should, like you, already know what his
> opinions are?), asking for clarification is no use
> since I often don't get any response to questions I
> ask, and he doesn't even appear to pay much attention
> to anything I've said in the first place. I'm
> starting to think trying to talk to him is just a
> complete waste of time.
>
> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
> like you really care about reaching a better
> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
> you can criticize in what I say.
>
> On the other hand, when I talk to people like Frank or
> Lowell or Ken (just thinking about people I've
> discussed things with recently), I feel to a far
> greater degree than with you that we're actually
> *discussing* a subject - that the goal is to come to a
> better understanding of the subject with no one having
> to be "absolutely right" and with everyone willing to
> alter their positions if better evidence comes along.
>
> At least one other person has told me that it's not
> very pleasant discussing things with you because you
> just want to criticize, criticize, criticize - making
> the other person as "wrong" as possible. (And, no I'm
> not talking about Larry - though I imagine with his
> statements about how your only goal is "winning" that
> he'd agree to the above statement.) I don't know that
> impression is really what you intend, but it certainly
> feels that way to some of us.
>
>
>> even though your main interest may be evaluating
> other
>> people's logic, you do at least take the time to
>> support and explain your points and thus talking
> with
>> you does not feel like a complete waste of time.
>
> You:
> That's good. :^)
>
> Me:
> Yes it is.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: fighting for the helluva it....
Date: 08 Oct 2002 23:48:54 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 23:30, larry fullmer wrote:
> michelle, bill, robert, group,
>
> michelle, i deeply respect you for the time, patientence, and effort you
> have put into communication with, in particular, robert and bill on the
> question of rape.
>
> time will tell, but, respect or not, i figure you've wasted it.
>
> truth to tell, i also respect bill for the extensive detail he can
provided,
> like no one else, on virtually any subject. i only question his motives.

My motive was simple, and state din my FIRST post on the subject. I saw
you three talking past each other in a way, using words differently and
yelling and cursing each other (ok, so only one was yelling, and
cursing). I figure with a different way of saying things, and pointing
out where you guys were agreeing, and where you were using the same
words to mean different things, I could help out. I know now, that you
don't care about understanding, just posturing, so that mistake will not
be repeated.

>
> the fact is, all of us involved in this discussion of rape have known from
> day one that we are discussing consent, and the lack of it.
>
> all the rest has been quibbleing. even bill, in his last post, wrote "it
> all comes down to consent". really? as i see it that is exactly where i
> started. fraud is not direct physical violence, as sometimes rape is not,

Well at least I'm not a sicko now for saying that .. unless you are too.
:)

> but it **is** a derivative concept. the broadest concept is aggression,

mr. Fullmer, you have presented the assertion that fraud is force by
being a derivative. How exactly do you get to that conclusion? I ask
because it opens a very, very, very dangerous slippery slope, one that
as I look at it, leads directly and unavoidably to fascism of the
highest order. If fraud is violence by derivation, and presumably a
descendant from aggression as you seem to assert, then so is lying, and
half-truths, and withholding information. Once on that slope, nearly
everything can be considered a derivative of aggression, and hence,
violence.

> physical or not, and the defininging principle is the concept of rights.
>
> libertarians know that.
>
> the helluva it is, both bill and robert question, even argue against, the
> defining principle of liberty.

Then you should be able to show exactly where I did, an din clear
uncertain terms. Otherwise, you would be committing a fraud, and hence,
violence and aggression. (that slippery slope again).

>
> robert writes that there are no legitimate normatives. they are all
> arbitrary, and a matter of opinion, including his view that a rapee
> defending herself is acting no more ligitimatly than the rapist.

I honestly have not seen him claim that. I've seen you mis-interpret it
that way, but not him say they are equal, just that both views exist.

>
> choosing to use the word "imposition" the way robert and bill have can
only
> be done if a person disregards the principle of liberty, or holds that it

Sorry, Mr. Fullmer, but that is simply not true. Just as in the case
that realizing that self-defense is use of force, but not bad, so too
are impositions good or bad.

> robert claims normatives are fictional inventions, even when it comes to a
> woman "imposing" on a rapist. i figure bill just got involved it all to
> prove how smart he is. i would conclude otherwise were he to write the
> group in support of liberty and rational normatives. i figure he won't.

Liberty, yes, I have in the past, and you damned well know it. Saying I
do not is being deceitful .. hence fraudulent ... hence aggression hence
violence .. by the slippery slope you seem to present above.

But your "rational normative", that's your game, not mine.

> LIBERTY IS A RATIONAL, MORAL NORMATIVE, DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE,
AND
> THE NATURE OF HUMANS, OR IT IS A FICTIONAL INVENTION TO BE WON ONLY BY
FORCE
> AND "IMPOSED" ON OTHERS. "IMPOSED LIBERTY" IS THE SICKEST OXYMORON I'VE
> EVER RAN ACROSS. THE VERY CONJUCTION OF WORDS INVALIDATES ANY RATIONAL
> DEFINITION OF THE WORD LIBERTY.

ONLY with the definition you have chosen to use for the word impose.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 00:11:01 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill,

i do value your mind, unlike some others in this group.

i truly do wish, though, that when i read you i could detect a motive of a
joint search for truth, rather than "i'm" right.

i know, you could have the same complaint, but i've been arguing with
robert, for christ sake, and if you ain't read that the rapee defending
herself is as evil as the rapist, it's just 'cause you were to busy at the
time.

what ya think about objective, rational normatives, bill??

can we talk about that, or do you have something to prove??

LF

ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do you
happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers ago, claiming
the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???

huh, bill? do you remember? everybody wants to win sometime. not that i
really care. it's just that, then and now, fascism was the correct word.

on 10/8/02 10:48 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 23:30, larry fullmer wrote:
>> michelle, bill, robert, group,
>>
>> michelle, i deeply respect you for the time, patientence, and effort you
>> have put into communication with, in particular, robert and bill on the
>> question of rape.
>>
>> time will tell, but, respect or not, i figure you've wasted it.
>>
>> truth to tell, i also respect bill for the extensive detail he can
provided,
>> like no one else, on virtually any subject. i only question his motives.
>
> My motive was simple, and state din my FIRST post on the subject. I saw
> you three talking past each other in a way, using words differently and
> yelling and cursing each other (ok, so only one was yelling, and
> cursing). I figure with a different way of saying things, and pointing
> out where you guys were agreeing, and where you were using the same
> words to mean different things, I could help out. I know now, that you
> don't care about understanding, just posturing, so that mistake will not
> be repeated.
>
>>
>> the fact is, all of us involved in this discussion of rape have known
from
>> day one that we are discussing consent, and the lack of it.
>>
>> all the rest has been quibbleing. even bill, in his last post, wrote "it
>> all comes down to consent". really? as i see it that is exactly where i
>> started. fraud is not direct physical violence, as sometimes rape is
not,
>
> Well at least I'm not a sicko now for saying that .. unless you are too.
> :)
>
>> but it **is** a derivative concept. the broadest concept is aggression,
>
> mr. Fullmer, you have presented the assertion that fraud is force by
> being a derivative. How exactly do you get to that conclusion? I ask
> because it opens a very, very, very dangerous slippery slope, one that
> as I look at it, leads directly and unavoidably to fascism of the
> highest order. If fraud is violence by derivation, and presumably a
> descendant from aggression as you seem to assert, then so is lying, and
> half-truths, and withholding information. Once on that slope, nearly
> everything can be considered a derivative of aggression, and hence,
> violence.
>
>
>> physical or not, and the defininging principle is the concept of rights.
>>
>> libertarians know that.
>>
>> the helluva it is, both bill and robert question, even argue against, the
>> defining principle of liberty.
>
> Then you should be able to show exactly where I did, an din clear
> uncertain terms. Otherwise, you would be committing a fraud, and hence,
> violence and aggression. (that slippery slope again).
>
>>
>> robert writes that there are no legitimate normatives. they are all
>> arbitrary, and a matter of opinion, including his view that a rapee
>> defending herself is acting no more ligitimatly than the rapist.
>
> I honestly have not seen him claim that. I've seen you mis-interpret it
> that way, but not him say they are equal, just that both views exist.
>
>>
>> choosing to use the word "imposition" the way robert and bill have can
only
>> be done if a person disregards the principle of liberty, or holds that it
>
> Sorry, Mr. Fullmer, but that is simply not true. Just as in the case
> that realizing that self-defense is use of force, but not bad, so too
> are impositions good or bad.
>
>
>> robert claims normatives are fictional inventions, even when it comes to
a
>> woman "imposing" on a rapist. i figure bill just got involved it all to
>> prove how smart he is. i would conclude otherwise were he to write the
>> group in support of liberty and rational normatives. i figure he won't.
>
> Liberty, yes, I have in the past, and you damned well know it. Saying I
> do not is being deceitful .. hence fraudulent ... hence aggression hence
> violence .. by the slippery slope you seem to present above.
>
> But your "rational normative", that's your game, not mine.
>
>
>> LIBERTY IS A RATIONAL, MORAL NORMATIVE, DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE,
AND
>> THE NATURE OF HUMANS, OR IT IS A FICTIONAL INVENTION TO BE WON ONLY BY
FORCE
>> AND "IMPOSED" ON OTHERS. "IMPOSED LIBERTY" IS THE SICKEST OXYMORON I'VE
>> EVER RAN ACROSS. THE VERY CONJUCTION OF WORDS INVALIDATES ANY RATIONAL
>> DEFINITION OF THE WORD LIBERTY.
>
> ONLY with the definition you have chosen to use for the word impose.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: 09 Oct 2002 00:42:05 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 01:11, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill,
>
> i do value your mind, unlike some others in this group.
>
> i truly do wish, though, that when i read you i could detect a motive of a
> joint search for truth, rather than "i'm" right.

Motives are really hard to detect in email. Heck, I can even outright
say what I am doing, and people don't see it. That's one reaosn i prefer
to discuss the arguments made. :)

>
> i know, you could have the same complaint, but i've been arguing with
> robert, for christ sake, and if you ain't read that the rapee defending
> herself is as evil as the rapist, it's just 'cause you were to busy at the
> time.

No, it is because he didn't say that. You interpreted it that way.

>
> what ya think about objective, rational normatives, bill??
>
> can we talk about that, or do you have something to prove??

Only if I can get a clear definition of what a "rational normative" is.
After all, normative is not a noun, so the use you are using is foreign
to me. What I *think* you mean is "a norm", but I can not be sure of
that. Given the recent issues around certain words, could you fault me
for that?

> ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do you
> happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers ago,
claiming
> the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???

Yes, I do. Fascism and socialism are not synonyms, nor are they
co-dependent. Socialism wants my two cows, fascism instead tells em what
to do with my cows, when to do it, and where.

Fascism is for the state, socialism is for the society.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 23:40:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry Fullmer previously wrote:
> > ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do you
> > happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers ago,
claiming
> > the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???

And, you replied:
> Yes, I do. Fascism and socialism are not synonyms, nor are they
> co-dependent. Socialism wants my two cows, fascism instead tells em what
> to do with my cows, when to do it, and where.
> Fascism is for the state, socialism is for the society.

Bill, this confuses me a great deal. You seem to be falling into the
same trap that many others do, that there really is a "right vs.
left". (Right meaning fascism, while left signifies "socialism").
Libertarians rarely if ever would make serious distinctions between
the two evils, since both groups want to control government for their
own purposes, that is, to control everyone else.

Communism is certainly for "society", at least in its generic
definition. Government was supposed to eventually wither away, and
society would be equal on its own footing. It was envisioned that
government "power" would only be the catalyst for creating such a
magnificent society.

What my problem with your definition really is, is that it creates an
artificial dilemma of sorts, needing government to solve social
issues. Both socialism and fascism suggest that social issues must be
changed to one degree or another under the careful planning and use of
power that government has available.

Libertarians usually don't wish to discuss social issues in terms of
"right vs. left". There are admittedly a couple of good models that
still accept such a normative approach to defining political and
social realities. The best one I can think of at the moment was first
posed by the late Gary Allen, a political analyst in his own right.
But he radically changed the definitions of what constituted right vs.
left. On Allen's scale, the right was anarchy, or NO government at
all. On the left was TOTAL government. Allen rightly knew that both
socialism and fascism were the embodiment of government solutions to
social problems, and wanted to part of the silly debate. His scale is
at least what most libertarians today might still accept as a valid
differentiation in an effort to define the nature of political
(government) power. I have a great deal of respect for Allen's model.

On the other hand, the LP and most libertarians (with the small "l")
seem to be gravitating toward another model, that recognizes neither a
right or left approach, such as the small quiz advertised by the LP
and other libertarian organizations. There is the "economic"
questions, then the "social" questions, to determine if you are a
libertarian, an authoritarian, and various other mixes. It too is very
accurate, and does a pretty good job in defining what individual
really believe, but the AXIOM in this case is LIBERTY!

In retrospect, I don't think Allen was really wrong. I believe he had
as his notion that government is the total absence of liberty, and
anarchy represented pure freedom and liberty. I think even the
current libertarian model accepts Allen's two tiered premise between a
real "right" and a real "left". You got to remember that Allen wrote
predating the modern LP quiz. I think in some ways what libertarians
have now done is to make the right vs left issue into accepting that
sometimes people can be economic conservatives and otherwise social
liberals!

But if you read Allen's literature, and he wrote a voluminous amount
of it, you might discover that his scale could also be interpreted
today to mean (right) LIBERAL, and (left) CONSERVATIVE. If you really
think I'm kidding about this, you need to rethink what Allen's
propositions were really all about. His placing of NO government on
the right was a giant leap at the time. It meant total choices for
individuals at all times and in all places. Total liberalism really in
a lot of ways. On the other side, the left, it was total government,
with absolutely no personal choices or liberty in any form whatsoever.

All I am saying is that the current definitions defining "right vs.
left" leave a lot to be desired. That's why I believe libertarians
have tried to accept Allen's definitions, but largely casting them
between the dilemma of "social" vs. "economic" liberty. I personally
believe that Allen was far more consistent in this regard than is the
current libertarian model. It's pretty clear, if looking at Allen's
scale, where RIGHT really is: NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL! Total freedom,
and the LEFT: total government -- no choices whatsoever.

Okay, now for the realities in this mix. Both Al Gore and George W.
Bush are on the far LEFT, seeking government power to create solutions
to both economic and social problems. Al Gore is traditionally seen
on the left, where the Shrub is seen on the right. On Allen's chart,
"right vs. left" there is little difference, since government is the
solution. In BOTH case, government power will increase, and liberty
will decrease.

We are unfortunately, living in a world of delusion. We have the
current "right vs. left" debate centring upon what government should
be doing in BOTH economic and social matters. Allen at least was a
giant in his own time in discovering that BOTH are really one form of
masterminding the need for even more government power and control!
Most of the political debate today still has its focus on socializing
society, versus locking up people who choose to make the wrong choices
in the social lives. BOTH, I submit do exactly the same thing! BOTH
limit our choices and BOTH employ the use of government force to take
such choices away.

But if you follow Allen's model, you make a real choice. The choice is
between government power, and individual liberty in ALL cases! I
first began reading Gary Allen back in the early 1970s! Well, that's
several decades ago now. I've probably read all of his books during
this lifetime. Allen wasn't always perfect either, but given today's
choices, I would certainly cast might vote that he knew where he was
coming from and defined it very well.

I encourage you, and everyone else to consider the current "right vs.
left" debates taking place today. In my mind anyway, they are saying
pretty much the same thing. "We need MORE government" to solve all of
our problems. This IS NOT a debate between Al Gore and GW Bush! This
is a debate between the two alternatives, government control and
power, vs. individual choice and liberty and freedom! Again, Allen
made his case so clear in my mind, that I ended up reading everything
that he ever wrote, both his books and literature, and in his
contributions to political journals, which, by the way, were a great
many.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:32:52 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:

> Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> Larry Fullmer previously wrote:
> > > ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do
you
> > > happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers
ago, claiming
> > > the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???
>
> And, you replied:
> > Yes, I do. Fascism and socialism are not synonyms, nor are they
> > co-dependent. Socialism wants my two cows, fascism instead tells em
what
> > to do with my cows, when to do it, and where.
> > Fascism is for the state, socialism is for the society.
>
> Bill, this confuses me a great deal. You seem to be falling into the
> same trap that many others do, that there really is a "right vs.
> left". (Right meaning fascism, while left signifies "socialism").
> Libertarians rarely if ever would make serious distinctions between
> the two evils, since both groups want to control government for their
> own purposes, that is, to control everyone else.

Just because we're opposed to both doesn't mean they're not also opposed
to each other.

> Libertarians usually don't wish to discuss social issues in terms of
> "right vs. left".

True, because we have our own axe to grind. So we could ignore the
distinctions. However, I think an understanding of them could be
useful.

> There are admittedly a couple of good models that
> still accept such a normative approach to defining political and
> social realities. The best one I can think of at the moment was first
> posed by the late Gary Allen, a political analyst in his own right.
> But he radically changed the definitions of what constituted right vs.
> left. On Allen's scale, the right was anarchy, or NO government at
> all. On the left was TOTAL government. Allen rightly knew that both
> socialism and fascism were the embodiment of government solutions to
> social problems, and wanted to part of the silly debate. His scale is
> at least what most libertarians today might still accept as a valid
> differentiation in an effort to define the nature of political
> (government) power. I have a great deal of respect for Allen's model.

Andrew Melechinsky must've also, because he distributed copies of such a
scale. I don't know whether he cribbed it from Gary Allen or not.

> On the other hand, the LP and most libertarians (with the small "l")
> seem to be gravitating toward another model, that recognizes neither a
> right or left approach, such as the small quiz advertised by the LP
> and other libertarian organizations. There is the "economic"
> questions, then the "social" questions, to determine if you are a
> libertarian, an authoritarian, and various other mixes. It too is very
> accurate, and does a pretty good job in defining what individual
> really believe, but the AXIOM in this case is LIBERTY!

There are still other ways of modeling these things.

In Lyndon LaRouche's classification scheme, libertarians, communists,
and fascists are all on the "Aristotelian" end of the scale, with him at
the opposite, "Platonist" end. The same way the differences between
fascist and communist are of relatively little consequence to
libertarians (although of enormously important between each other),
LaRouchians see libertarians in that mix as well, with little
significant difference between us, as opposed to themselves! It all
depends what's important to you.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:01:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote to Bill Anderson thusly:
> > Bill, this confuses me a great deal. You seem to be falling into the
> > same trap that many others do, that there really is a "right vs.
> > left". (Right meaning fascism, while left signifies "socialism").
> > Libertarians rarely if ever would make serious distinctions between
> > the two evils, since both groups want to control government for their
> > own purposes, that is, to control everyone else.

You replied:
> Just because we're opposed to both doesn't mean they're not also opposed
> to each other.

I am not totally opposed to a "right vs left" interpretation, as I
said previously, I do respect Allen's model as very accurate. It is
only confusing because to mention the far right, or the far left, is
confusing to most Americans who still view such definitions in terms
of fascism vs socialism. In other words, if I wanted to employ
Allen's model and use such definitions, I would have to spend an
inordinate amount of time explaining that I am using different terms
that would normally be applied by most others.

I suppose you could suggest that fascism and communism are opposed to
each other, but from a libertarian point of view they really are just
two sides of the same coin, e.g.: using government power to achieve
political or social ends as the case may be. The real central problem
in the so-called debate between right vs left ignores the central
issue, which is that both sides have in mind the result of creating
mechanisms (laws) in which have the end result of applying tremendous
force to achieve such goals. The far right usually is pictured as the
party of individual liberty, for example, while the far left is the
party for social and democratic empowerment (although both examples
are serious distortions and really do not address the central issue at
all).

Maybe a better question to ask is "Why are these two sides really
opposed to each other at all?" Why couldn't they simply come together
and form one unified position of moving toward an all compassing
state? I think that is happening anyway with the bi-partisan nature
of Congress and the rotating Presidency. Sometimes the Democrats get
their way and legislation is passed. Sometimes the GOP manages to get
laws on the books that have the effect of further destroying
individual liberty. The net result is that slowly we are moving in
the direction of an all encompassing state in terms of BOTH fascism
and radical socialism.

If we were to use Allen's scale between the alternatives of NO
government at all on the far right, both Democrats and Republicans
would be viewed as moving together in tandem rapidly to the far left
(total government).

And, if this is the case, then the Libertarian movement would be on
the radical right of Allen's spectrum, which indeed it is. Further to
the right, and probably representing the extreme right pole, would be
libertarian anarchists who claim the ultimate goal of no government
whatsoever.

I previously wrote:
> > Libertarians usually don't wish to discuss social issues in terms of
> > "right vs. left".

You replied:
> True, because we have our own axe to grind. So we could ignore the
> distinctions. However, I think an understanding of them could be
> useful.

The difference between the self-perceived opposition is meaningless
for libertarians since both are intrinsically evil and represent much
the same effect, culminating in the loss of individual liberty. I
don't believe libertarians ignore whatever minor differences may exist
because we have our own axe to grind as such, so much as we view such
a conflict as irrelevant. Neither the usually accepted version of what
constitutes the far right versus the far left really has the idea of
individual liberty as an expected outcome.

> Andrew Melechinsky must've also, because he distributed copies of such a
> scale. I don't know whether he cribbed it from Gary Allen or not.

Gary Allen first published his scale in the early 1970s. He did so on
the basis that on the usually accepted scale various alternative
government models could NOT fit on the traditional scale, such as a
limited constitutional government that the US was originally based
upon. Allen's objections centred around the notion that such
arguments based upon the traditional scale always point in one
direction, more government power and less individual liberty. In
other words, if the far right (fascists -- national socialists) were
debating with the far left (radical socialists) the end result is
always more government government power moving from one extreme to the
other. Allen pointed out that on the entire traditional scale the idea
of government becoming larger will always result since it is the
anticipation from both sides that government should control
individuals for the common good.

> There are still other ways of modeling these things.

Sure there are, but most do not really have a way to address
individual liberty on such scales, or a government composed for the
purpose of protecting individual liberties such as the US government
started out to be. If liberty is NOT an important consideration, then
arguing between fascists and socialists might have some meaning, but
only if others discount the importance of liberty.

> In Lyndon LaRouche's classification scheme, libertarians, communists,
> and fascists are all on the "Aristotelian" end of the scale, with him at
> the opposite, "Platonist" end.

It may be proper insofar as comparisons might be made with ancient
Greek philosophy, but again it likely will not address the issue of a
limited constitutional government versus a much larger one. Let me
just put it this way, in philosophical terms I suggest likely several
"right vs left" models could be crafted, but that assumes that two
philosophies are generally acceptable, or held by the vast majority of
individuals where such comparisons could be made. Much of east Asia's
political realism has a much different base, and therefore seems to be
far more tolerating of competing government models. The ying-yang idea
of things moving back and forth makes even communism acceptable for a
while, only to be replaced later with the flow moving in the opposite
direction. If a right vs left model is produced with ying on the far
left and yang on the far right, then that too provides a model for a
large segment of the population of say Korea (north and south) and
China. I do not believe most of western culture would accept such a
model however.

> The same way the differences between
> fascist and communist are of relatively little consequence to
> libertarians (although of enormously important between each other),
> LaRouchians see libertarians in that mix as well, with little
> significant difference between us, as opposed to themselves! It all
> depends what's important to you.

So, should libertarians use the traditional "right vs left" model that
is most accepted, or should we use another model? How do you suppose
such use might be helpful in defining something that cannot be
represented fairly. Most individuals that I know of couldn't put
libertarians on such a model. The best they do is to say that on
social issues we tend to side with many Democrats, while on economic
issues we tend to side with the GOP! I submit that is never the case
in reality since both the right and left have the goal of growing more
government, a concept that is anathema to all libertarians. For our
purposes the traditional scale that has become the acceptable model is
irrelevant. I like the model that LP national uses with the small
quiz, since it really shows that over a broad spectrum of economic and
social issues another criteria becomes central, individual choice and
individual liberty, neither of which the traditional approach can deal
with at all.

But again, if liberty is NOT important, and simply becomes irrelevant,
then the LP model would only be significant for those who challenge
the status quo, including the traditional right vs left chart. Which
is why I believe we should continue to use it.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, i wish, i truly wish.....
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:36:28 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:

> > > Libertarians usually don't wish to discuss social issues in terms
of
> > > "right vs. left".
>
> You replied:
> > True, because we have our own axe to grind. So we could ignore the
> > distinctions. However, I think an understanding of them could be
> > useful.
>
> The difference between the self-perceived opposition is meaningless
> for libertarians since both are intrinsically evil and represent much
> the same effect, culminating in the loss of individual liberty. I
> don't believe libertarians ignore whatever minor differences may exist
> because we have our own axe to grind as such, so much as we view such
> a conflict as irrelevant. Neither the usually accepted version of what
> constitutes the far right versus the far left really has the idea of
> individual liberty as an expected outcome.

Then I guess you didn't understand my use of the metaphor. What you
wrote above is what I meant by having our own ax to grind.

> > Andrew Melechinsky must've also, because he distributed copies of
such a
> > scale. I don't know whether he cribbed it from Gary Allen or not.

> So, should libertarians use the traditional "right vs left" model that
> is most accepted, or should we use another model? How do you suppose
> such use might be helpful in defining something that cannot be
> represented fairly. Most individuals that I know of couldn't put
> libertarians on such a model.

I think we should try to understand what motivates people who have other
ideas, to try to see the world as they see it, to understand why things
are the way they are. It's one thing to try to explain our thinking to
others, and another thing for us to understand what others think.
Different models for different purposes.

Often -- maybe usually -- changes in the degree of individual liberty
have come about as a by-product of a movement or struggle along other
political axes (in this case, pl. of axis, not of ax). That sort of
thing is likely to continue as long as these powerful polarizing
tendencies exist. It might help us if we could guess how to take
advantage of such currents, and also of which currents to be afraid of.

In all of USA history, there has never been a deliberately, consciously
authoritarian tendency of any significant size or power. Decreases in
freedom in the USA have frequently come about from movements that were
aimed largely at increasing freedom. Take the gov't schools...please!
The system came about and assumed its present form thru the interplay of
interest groups most of which were afraid of what they saw as
authoritarian potential in their competition -- and the interplay
continues to this day.

Your Sin: Liberty,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: political differences, right v. left, etc.
Date: 09 Oct 2002 13:54:20 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 09:40, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> Larry Fullmer previously wrote:
> > > ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do you
> > > happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers ago,
claiming
> > > the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???
>
> And, you replied:
> > Yes, I do. Fascism and socialism are not synonyms, nor are they
> > co-dependent. Socialism wants my two cows, fascism instead tells em what
> > to do with my cows, when to do it, and where.
> > Fascism is for the state, socialism is for the society.
>
> Bill, this confuses me a great deal. You seem to be falling into the
> same trap that many others do, that there really is a "right vs.
> left". (Right meaning fascism, while left signifies "socialism").

Frank, I gave no indication that this constitutes "right vs. left".

A Blazer can be called the opposite of a Metro, but the are still both
GM products, both automobiles. That isn't to say that that since they
are both automobiles, or both GM Products, they are the same thing.

Sure, they both get you to a destination, but how they do, and what they
do, and why both exists is a distinct separation from that.

> Libertarians rarely if ever would make serious distinctions between
> the two evils, since both groups want to control government for their
> own purposes, that is, to control everyone else.

So do Libertarians. Libertarians want a government that performs certain
actions. The means are the same. That does not, however say that the
motives are the same. The distinction is important if you want to do
anything more than sit around and talk about it.

The differences lie at the root, to be in the motives of the people. If
you do not understand that fascists are motivated to act and subscribe
to the fascist ideal because of their underlying beliefs, you will fail
to be able to combat them.

The battle between such ideals as Democracy-ism, Republic-ism, Fascism,
Socialism, and Communism (and all the other -isms) is a battle not
carried out on the field of war, but in the mind and heart of the
respective subscribers. One can not lump all others into one, and expect
victory.

Divide and Conquer. Figure out why socialists are socialists, and you
have a means to bring them to be libertarians. Same with the other isms.
However, try to use the arguments and strategy that works on a Socialist
on a "Republicanist" (I am trying to find a way to refer to them in a
way that doesn't say "member of the Republican party", so yes, I made
that word up), and you will run into a wall. What convinces a socialist
that socialism doesn't meet his needs, will not convince a communist
that communism doesn't meet his goals.

For example, loot at Gorbachev. he essentially renounced socialism, but
not capitalism (probably because as capitalism progresses, it lines up
better with Communism than does socialism). If the two were the same
thing, Gorbachev would not still be favoring communism.

In my opinion, lumping things into anarchy/libertarian vs. everything
else is essentially committing the same mistake as "right/left". Just as
erroneous, just as dangerous, and just as futile.

This even exists with the broad concept of libertarianism. There are
minarchists, "true" anarchists, those who are minarchists regarding some
aspects of government, and laissez-faire regarding otehrs. It is often
said that the LP is too diverse in opinions to be unified in action. Yet
by learning these differences, these distinctions withing th e subset, a
common set can be found, and when used properly can progress and advance
the cause of libertarianism dramatically.

> Communism is certainly for "society", at least in its generic

Frank, Communism is different than socialism. Sure, as commonly applied,
they have been as tied together as democracy and capitalism. Just as
those two are not interchangeable, neither are Socialism and Communism
interchangeable.

> definition. Government was supposed to eventually wither away, and
> society would be equal on its own footing. It was envisioned that
> government "power" would only be the catalyst for creating such a
> magnificent society.

And today, we are seeing the economic side of America gravitating toward
communism in it's "pure" sense, and as a result of a misconception that
communism must be with socialism, we see the government side moving
toward socialism.

>
> What my problem with your definition really is, is that it creates an
> artificial dilemma of sorts, needing government to solve social

My problem with it, is that it wasn't a definition, nor intended to be
one. It was an example of one of the chief differences between the two.

> issues. Both socialism and fascism suggest that social issues must be
> changed to one degree or another under the careful planning and use of
> power that government has available.

In many respects, so too does Libertarianism. Not saying they are equal
morally or on the whole, but that the means and method are the.

> On the other hand, the LP and most libertarians (with the small "l")
> seem to be gravitating toward another model, that recognizes neither a
> right or left approach, such as the small quiz advertised by the LP
> and other libertarian organizations. There is the "economic"
> questions, then the "social" questions, to determine if you are a
> libertarian, an authoritarian, and various other mixes. It too is very
> accurate, and does a pretty good job in defining what individual
> really believe, but the AXIOM in this case is LIBERTY!

The axiom, yes, but not the result. In my experience, the power of this
model is that it makes people realize that it is not all one vs. the
other. It provides people with the opportunity to see that they may well
have different "sides" on economic issues, then they do on "social"
issues.

It's power to Libertarians is not so much to say "see, you agree with us
on this, and not on that", but to provide the libertarians with a better
understanding of the demographic. It provides a window into the beliefs
of the other person.

Rather like my neighbor. He claims to be a democrat. He doesn't actually
subscribe to most o the beliefs the Democrats carry. For example, he
doesn't think we should be squashing spiders, killing bees, etc. when
they come in to the house. In his house, he takes them outside. Yet, his
opinion on my house/yard, is that it is mine, not his.

So, if I were to try to show him how libertarianism can improve his
life, I have been given a means to do so: his care and concern for the
bugs, as en example of his beliefs. Rather than show how we should be
free to stomp or spray them, I should point out how such behavior tends
to save them.

That s an example of knowing the motives of the person you are talking
to. if one says they are not a libertarians, they are an anarchist, they
are making a statement about what motivates them. If someone professes
socialism instead of communism, or prefers fascism, we gain an
understanding that is not possible by broad-brushing them. Yet, as in
the case of my neighbor, what they claim may not be what they do. Thus,
it is important to look at their actions and self-stated specific
beliefs. The same "rules" apply here.

That is why I see the distinction as important.

> predating the modern LP quiz. I think in some ways what libertarians
> have now done is to make the right vs left issue into accepting that
> sometimes people can be economic conservatives and otherwise social
> liberals!

Yes, exactly, and it is an important understanding.

> All I am saying is that the current definitions defining "right vs.
> left" leave a lot to be desired. That's why I believe libertarians

Yes, they do, but I fail to see how making a distinction between
socialism and fascism supports the right vs left paradigm as currently
in place.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: so, bill, you put a lot of time into it - Re: my take on the
thread
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:16:38 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill (or should i write, sarcastically "mr. andersen"),

you put a lot of time into your respnse to michelle, as she did responding
to you.

i can't do that, at the moment. gonna have to respond to the high points.

snipped and interspersed below:

<snip>

>> Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
>> just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
>> Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
>> "imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.
>>
> Fair enough, and at least you are willing to see that, as opposed to Mr.
> Fullmer, who absolutely insists that it is his way, or you are a
> fascist.

i disagree with even michelle, here. the word imposed has a dictionary
definition, which michelle has communicated to the group. and, i believe,
it is a word that both you and robert understand the common definition of.
i claim robert understood exactly what he was doing when he when he wrote
that a woman defending herself from rape was imposing on the rapist.

he very well may have written that a woman defending herself from rape was
violating the "liberty" of a rapist. think about it, bill! you're a
logician, so you claim. maybe i should ask you, "mr. andersen" what
**your** definition of libert is??!!

it's true, some folks claim "liberty" is doing whatever the fuck they want,
whenever the hell they want to, to who the hell ever. that does not have
squat to do with liberty, as i figure you understand. nor does the word
"imposition" have squat to do with a woman defending herself from rape.

>>
>> Then again you are reading things you know Robert
>> already believes into his statements. My point was
>> just that Robert didn't include that information in
>> his post.
>
> Well, you asked my opinion, and you got it.
>
>>> Me:
>>> I appreciate you saying this, Bill. I have long had
>>> the sense that your primary interest in discussing
>>> things on the list is to critique other people's
>>> opinions. To my mind, the conversations here are
>>> opportunities to dialogue about difficult subjects
>> so
>>> as to come to a better knowledge of other opinions
>> and
>>> hopefully to what the best answers are - not an
>>> opportunity to conduct scientific experiments on
>>> people's communication styles. Hopefully the
>>
>> You:
>> Well, I am observing, not experimenting. Fortunately,
>> this observation
>> and learning process has allowed me to reach more
>> people, and
>> understand
>> them better. How is that any different than what you
>> intend?
>>
>> Me:
>> Observing is good; improved communication is good.
>> Talking about testing hypotheses about communication
>> on us poor guinea pigs in the group, though, seems
>> unnecessarily arrogant to me.
>
> Then let me explain.
> I test a hypothesis about how someone is going to react, by not saying
> anything. That way, I can see if I am right in my understanding if their
> position, or their style of communicating. Why is that arrogant? how is
> it any less arrogant than, for example "I know you are going to say
> <this> since I have said <that>?" or "by definition"?
>

>> You:
>> Interesting, I've seen you and Mr. Fullmer say that he
>> has presented
>> material and then not defended it. Rather difficult to
>> do if only
>> responding and critiquing. ;)

well, yeah, bill, that's the point ain't it. he has yet to do the very
simple thing of giveing me his definition of liberty. why??!! he
critiques, only, and when asked a question, well, hell, he doesn't wanna
feel "raped" by responding!!

> Most of the time, Robert is under attack for challenging assumptions
> that others hold dear, even when the assumptions are wrong.

UHH, BILL, DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A RAPEE HAS A RIGHT TO
DEFEND HERSELF FROM RAPE, WITHOUT BEING CALLED AM "IMPOSER" (WHO HAS
VIOLATED THE RAPISTS LIBERTY)?

UHHH, BILL, TELL ME ABOUT MY WRONG ASSUMPTIONS, AND WHY A RAPEE IS AN
"IMPOSER" (VIOLATING A RAPIST'S LIBERTY)!

WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY "WRONG ASSUMPTIONS". YOU AIN'T HAD SQUAT TO SAY ABOUT
THAT. NOT SQUAT. AND NIETHER HAS ROBERT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT RATIONAL
MORALITY, AND EVEN LIBERTY, IS NOTHING BUT AND OPINION "WHICH CANNOT BE
DEFENDED".
>
> For some, it may well be. Not everyone is worth communicating, or trying
> to, with for everyone; given certain impasses, or lack of common
> understandings to base things from. If you feel it is not worth your
> time, don't do it.
>
>> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
>> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
>> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
>> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
>> like you really care about reaching a better
>> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
>> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
>> you can criticize in what I say.
>
> It certainly can seem that way. Just as seems all Mr. Fullmer wants to
> do is yell at people, call them names, talk about guns and penises and
> find a way to eventually say "go ahead, kick me out, I'm used to it" or
> "see, you don't agree with ME so YOU must be anti-libertarian."

UHHH, BILL, I FIGURE I'VE WRITTEN THIS BEFORE. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO QUIBBLE,
OR MORE, ABOUT THE **RIGHT** OF AN ADULT FEMALE TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM RAPE
FALLS FAR SHORT OF BEING ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE WORD LIBERTARIAN TO DESCRIBE
THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE IN THAT GROUP, WITH
ROBERT?
>
> I am a logician by nature. As such, my goal is to eliminate logical
> fallacies. Does one accuse the doctor of "only" wanting to find cancer
> when he does breast examinations? It is not like he *wants* to find
> cancer pods, yet nobody pays attention until he does.

LOGICIAN, EH?? WHERE ARE MINE?!! I AIN'T READ YOU CLAIMS, NOR YOUR
ARGUMENTS. YOU JUST WRITE UP WITH NOT ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT. REALLY! LIKE I
WROTE, I FIGURE YOU KNEW DAMNED WELL I WAS WRITE ABOUT CONSENT, AS WAS
ROBERT.

SOME FOLKS, BILL, AND I FEAR YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, CONFUSE LOGIC WITH
NITPICKING AND "WINNING". NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET!!

> I am here for my understanding. I learn by reading and
> watching others. Often times the best way to learn about something is to
> shut up and listen/read.

i've asked ken, lowell, robert, and now you, to define liberty for me, with
youall's definition. i figure that's a legitamate question, given the
group.

i've not got squat!!
>
> If I can aid others in making their case stronger, that is a nice bonus.
> Besides, if someone comes on and keeps saying things that are patently
> false, why should I sit here and say "you go, man!"??

patently false, eh? i take that personal, given the context. give me
argument, you logician.
>
> At any given moment, nearly every "talkative" member on this list has
> either enjoyed my methods (usually when it is "on their side"), or hated
> them (usually when they are on the other end).
>
> After all, I get the impression (feeling) when reading you and Mr.
> Fullmer's writings on this particular subject that not only have you
> made up your minds (which precludes discussion, only allowing lecture),
> and to heck with the facts. Also, I've picked up a distinct bias against
> men in the thread.

ASSHOLE, HOW CAN YOU WRITE THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE PICKED UP ON IS A DISTINCT
BIAS AGAINST RAPISTS, WHO YOU VIOLENCE, OR THE THREAT OF IT TO SERVER THEIR
OWN INTERESTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU PUT YOUSELF!!!! IN THAT GROUP, BILL??!! WHY THE
HELL??!!
>
> Unfortunately, this bias as led to a lot of laws that are at least as
> harmful, if not much more so than rape.

UHH, BILLY (MR. ANDERSEN) IF A HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, UNDER THE
PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY.

WHAT'S MORE OFFENSIVE THAN RAPE, SHORT OF MURDER AND TORTURE. PRICE
CONTROLS, MAYBE??!!
>
> For examples, look at the sexual harassment laws and the paternity/child
> support laws. say, for example, that a man and woman divorce and have
> four children involved. Years go by, and one comes down with Cerebral
> palsy, which leads to genetic testing. As a result of this, it is found
> out that of the four, only the oldest was fathered by the man. based in
> this, he wants to only pay child support for his own child. Not allowed.

GOOD GAWD, BILL AND YOU CLAIM TO BE A LOGICIAN, LEADING THE DISCUSSION
VASTLY ASTRAY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL BODY OF A HUMAN, WITH A
GUN OR A KNIFE, OR THREATS OF IT, AND YOU WANNA WRITE UP ABOUT CHILD
SUPPORT. WELL, HELL YA, CHILD SUPPORT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. A VERY
IMPORTANT ONE. BUT WE'RE TALKING DIRECT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, ON A HUMAN BODY,
OR AT THE VERY LEAST, THREATS OF IT. AND YOU FUCKING QUIBBLE, LOGICIAN THAT
YOU ARE. IF YOU AIN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, EXCEPT TO QUIBBLE, WHY THE HELL
SHOULD I OR ANYONE ELSE GIVE A SHIT ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT??!!

> Robert had it right that arguing over whether or not rape is inherently
> bad is non-productive (I believe he used the word stupid), especially
> when crap like what he have in the real world is going on.

JESUS H. CHRIST, BILL, IT BLOWS MY FUCKING MIND THAT THERE IS ***ANYONE****
IN THIS GROUP WHO WANTS TO ARGUE THAT RAPE IS NOT INHERENTLY!! BAD (AND AS
YOU KNOW, I'M WRITING ABOUT CONSENT).

*****RAPE ***IS*** INHERENTLY BAD!!! IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE TO ARGUE ABOUT
IT!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE THE "ARGUMENT" EVEN CAME UP. IT
CERTAINLY IS NOT "PROCUCTIVE" IN A GROUP WHICH CLAIMS TO BE LIBERTARIAN.

WHAT'LL WE GET NEXT - A NON-PRODUCTIVE ARGUMENT THAT MURDER IS NOT
INHERENTLY BAD (NEED I WRITE, AGRESSIVE MURDER, NOT SELF-DEFENSE).
>Despite Mr. Fullmer's beliefs, the discussions here have little to do with
>promoting liberty.

NO SHIT, BILL, WITH RAPE BEING JUSTIFIED.

> Damned near nothing, really. Nobody, despite the fraudulent
> claims of Mr. Fullmer, is here claiming rape should be legal.

WHAT CLAIMS HAVE I MADE WHICH A FRADULENT, BILL??!! UHH, IT'S TRUE, I'VE
NOT READ THAT RAPE SHOULD BE LEGAL. THE BIGGIE IS, I'VE READ NOTHING FROM
YOU OR FROM ROBERT THAT IT IS IMMORAL, AND THAT IT IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF
THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY.!!!!!

> Since nobody is arguing rape should become legal, there is
> no liberty implication.

BULLSHIT, BILL, IF ROBERT ARGUES THAT A RAPEE VIOLATES THE LIBERTY OF THE
RAPIST BY "IMPOSING" HER SELF-DEFNSE ON HIM - THERE IS A BIGTIME LIBERTY
IMPLICATION, AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE "LEGAL IMPLICATIONS" ARE IN
AFGANISTAN!!!!

I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT STATUTORY RAPE BILL. I'D STILL BE IN PRISON IF I'D
BEEN CAUGHT. CONSENT IS THE KEY TO THE QUESTION, AND IT IS THE KEY TO THE
PRINICIPLE OF LIBERTY - WHATEVER AGE.

FOR A LOGICIAN, BILL, YOU INTRRODUCE LOTS OF EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT.

I'VE BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE VIOLENT RAPE OF AN ADULT FEMALE, NOT GIVEING
CONSENT. YOU AND ROBERT BOTH KNOW THAT!!

SO, BILL, CUT IT WITH THE EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT. WRITE ME AND THE GROUP UP
WITH AN EXPRESSION OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT A MALE RAPEING AN ADULT FEMALE
WITHOUT CONSENT, USING VIOLENCE, OR THREATS OF IT.

NEITHER YOU OR ROBERT HAVE CHECKED IN ON THAT QUESTION. I DON'T EXPECT
ROBERT TO, BUT I HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR YOU.

LF

PS YEAH, I'M A TOTAL NUTCASE. I JUST TALKED TO MICHELLE ON THE PHONE. I
HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT FEMALES COULD RAPE
MALES WAS PURE BULLSHIT, GIVEN THAT THE LITTLE HEAD ONLY RISES OF ITS
OWN ACCORD. SHE SCREAMED AT ME. SHE WAS HELL BENT ON CLAIMING FEMALES
CAN RAPE MALES. GIVEN THAT ARGUMENT, ALL I CAN DO IS ROTFALMAO!!!!, AND
FEEL TRULY LONELY, INTELLECTUALY, AND ALL OF THE REST............

>
> In fact, I, as well as precious few others, have argued for dramtic
> improvements to our laws against rape, even though some of them are
> removal of classes of rape.
>
> For example, the removal of statutory rape. And no, the argument about
> pedophilia doesn't wash. We all know that 99%+ or "statutory rape" is
> teenagers in the back seat of a car, or in a hotel, or after the prom.
> Pedophilia is a separate crime. In cases where Statutory Rape is
> pressed, it is 99%+ of the time, pressed against the male, nearly never
> the female. Yet, by the laws in most states, it is illegal for both. in
> fact, by the law, if a 17 year old girl who with some makeup and a dimly
> lit environment can look in her mid-twenties, obtains a fake a fake id,
> goes in to a bar, meets a guy over 21 (no-fake id) and just to be sure
> he checks her id and sees it says she is "of age", has sex with him, the
> man has no defense.
>
> In that case, a fraud was indeed committed, by the woman. Yet who will
> be the one to face charges is mom and dad find out, or some other nosy
> buttinski? He will. And by the law, despite his reasonable efforts to
> verify what he was doing was legal, he will still lose. She, on the
> other hand, walks free. Yet, if you say that she should be charged with
> the fraudulent behavior (in fact, she should be charged with rape, since
> she used deception to get him to do it with her), you are anti-woman,
> and don't understand rape. If you say that we should abolish "statutory
> rape", you are labeled a pedophile.
>
> So the question about whether or not someone observes that there are
> more than one opinion involved, and then being called "pro-rape" to sum
> it up, is very much the same thing.
>
> The bigger issues, IMO, are the ramifications of the legal system's
> attitude toward rape and the ramifications of the laws passed as a
> result.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: so, bill, you put a lot of time into it - Re: my take on the thread
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Larry,

LF

PS YEAH, I'M A TOTAL NUTCASE. I JUST TALKED TO
MICHELLE ON THE PHONE.
I
HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT
FEMALES COULD
RAPE
MALES WAS PURE BULLSHIT, GIVEN THAT THE LITTLE HEAD
ONLY RISES OF
ITS
OWN ACCORD. SHE SCREAMED AT ME. SHE WAS HELL BENT
ON CLAIMING
FEMALES
CAN RAPE MALES. GIVEN THAT ARGUMENT, ALL I CAN DO
IS ROTFALMAO!!!!,
AND
FEEL TRULY LONELY, INTELLECTUALY, AND ALL OF THE
REST............

Your powers of exaggeration and distortion never cease
to amaze me. I didn't scream at you - or even raise
my voice. I simply gave you my opinion about Bill's
statement in the calm, rational voice I always use.
YOU hung up on ME because I had the audacity to
disagree with you.

I told you that I think it is quite uncommon for a
woman to rape a man and I also think it's a difficult
thing to do. However, I do think it's possible seeing
as how becoming physically aroused and wanting to have
sex are two separate (though related) things.

Screamed at you? The only person who is screaming (as
usual), Larry, is you, with your inability to tolerate
any differences of opinion.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: so, bill, you put a lot of time into it - Re: my take on the
thread
Date: 10 Oct 2002 12:41:52 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:32, Michelle wrote:

> Screamed at you?

I have to admit I found the idea of you screaming over the phone to
quite laughable. I'm sure you can be hacked off just like the rest of
us, but the image of you screaming into the phone was just ... rather
alien. :)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: so, bill, you put a lot of time into it - Re: my take on the
thread
Date: 10 Oct 2002 13:31:44 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:16, larry fullmer wrote:
> bill (or should i write, sarcastically "mr. andersen"),
>
> you put a lot of time into your respnse to michelle, as she did responding
> to you.
>
> i can't do that, at the moment. gonna have to respond to the high points.
>
> snipped and interspersed below:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
> >> just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
> >> Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
> >> "imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.
> >>
> > Fair enough, and at least you are willing to see that, as opposed to Mr.
> > Fullmer, who absolutely insists that it is his way, or you are a
> > fascist.
>
> i disagree with even michelle, here. the word imposed has a dictionary
> definition, which michelle has communicated to the group. and, i believe,
> it is a word that both you and robert understand the common definition of.

Where I come from, Mr. Fullmer, the word "impose", just like the
dictionary definition I provided (you can go to www.dictionary.com and
find it, btw) does not carry a "bad" connotation. It is recognized as a
thing thing can be, but is not always.

> he very well may have written that a woman defending herself from rape was
> violating the "liberty" of a rapist. think about it, bill! you're a

I haven't seen anyone on this list make that claim, Mr. Fullmer.

> logician, so you claim. maybe i should ask you, "mr. andersen" what
> **your** definition of libert is??!!

Irrelevant to the discussion. Since as you have admitted, nobody,
especially me, is arguing that rape (even your limited definition) is
not a violation of a woman's rights, the definition of "liberty" is to
relevant to the discussion of principles and existence of differing
points of view. As such, it is a red herring on your part, intentional
or otherwise.

> > Most of the time, Robert is under attack for challenging assumptions
> > that others hold dear, even when the assumptions are wrong.
>
> UHH, BILL, DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A RAPEE HAS A RIGHT TO
> DEFEND HERSELF FROM RAPE, WITHOUT BEING CALLED AM "IMPOSER" (WHO HAS
> VIOLATED THE RAPISTS LIBERTY)?

Nope, that is far from what I mean. I've posted what I mean. Might I
suggest reading them.

> UHHH, BILL, TELL ME ABOUT MY WRONG ASSUMPTIONS, AND WHY A RAPEE IS AN
> "IMPOSER" (VIOLATING A RAPIST'S LIBERTY)!

An imposition is not necessarily an abridgment or violation of one's
rights. one can impose, and not violate rights. I understand that is a
foreign concept to you, and until you are open to the concept, all that
will be accomplished in attempting to discuss it with you will be more
insults and references to "short dicks" or the like.

> WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY "WRONG ASSUMPTIONS". YOU AIN'T HAD SQUAT TO SAY
ABOUT
> THAT. NOT SQUAT. AND NIETHER HAS ROBERT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT RATIONAL

Yes, I have. I have said so directly, that you (for example) assume that
everyone knows exactly what you mean, and that everyone uses your chosen
definitions of words. You ASSume much, Mr Fullmer. Check the archives,
it's all there.

> MORALITY, AND EVEN LIBERTY, IS NOTHING BUT AND OPINION "WHICH CANNOT BE
> DEFENDED".

Again, incorrect. The statement I saw regarding opinions were that they
can not be proved, not that they can not be defended.

> >
> > For some, it may well be. Not everyone is worth communicating, or trying
> > to, with for everyone; given certain impasses, or lack of common
> > understandings to base things from. If you feel it is not worth your
> > time, don't do it.
> >
> >> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
> >> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
> >> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
> >> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
> >> like you really care about reaching a better
> >> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
> >> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
> >> you can criticize in what I say.
> >
> > It certainly can seem that way. Just as seems all Mr. Fullmer wants to
> > do is yell at people, call them names, talk about guns and penises and
> > find a way to eventually say "go ahead, kick me out, I'm used to it" or
> > "see, you don't agree with ME so YOU must be anti-libertarian."
>
> UHHH, BILL, I FIGURE I'VE WRITTEN THIS BEFORE. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO
QUIBBLE,
> OR MORE, ABOUT THE **RIGHT** OF AN ADULT FEMALE TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM
RAPE
> FALLS FAR SHORT OF BEING ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE WORD LIBERTARIAN TO
DESCRIBE
> THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE IN THAT GROUP, WITH
> ROBERT?

You have no authority to assign me to any group, period. So do what you
wish, it is non-binding, and I don't care.

> >
> > I am a logician by nature. As such, my goal is to eliminate logical
> > fallacies. Does one accuse the doctor of "only" wanting to find cancer
> > when he does breast examinations? It is not like he *wants* to find
> > cancer pods, yet nobody pays attention until he does.
>
> LOGICIAN, EH?? WHERE ARE MINE?!! I AIN'T READ YOU CLAIMS, NOR YOUR

See, there you go. You say I have not done things, then admit you
haven't read where I do.

> ARGUMENTS. YOU JUST WRITE UP WITH NOT ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT. REALLY! LIKE
I
> WROTE, I FIGURE YOU KNEW DAMNED WELL I WAS WRITE ABOUT CONSENT, AS WAS
> ROBERT.

See, an incorrect assumption on your part. Again.

A touch of arrogance is found here as well, one could say. After all,
why should it be that you assume I should know what you mean, but that
you should not assume what I mean?

>
> SOME FOLKS, BILL, AND I FEAR YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, CONFUSE LOGIC WITH
> NITPICKING AND "WINNING". NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET!!
>
>
> > I am here for my understanding. I learn by reading and
> > watching others. Often times the best way to learn about something is to
> > shut up and listen/read.
>
> i've asked ken, lowell, robert, and now you, to define liberty for me,
with
> youall's definition. i figure that's a legitamate question, given the
> group.

You first.

>
> i've not got squat!!
> >
> > If I can aid others in making their case stronger, that is a nice bonus.
> > Besides, if someone comes on and keeps saying things that are patently
> > false, why should I sit here and say "you go, man!"??
>
> patently false, eh? i take that personal, given the context. give me
> argument, you logician.

I have, and you, by your own admission, do not read them., Therefore, it
is pointless to continue to do so.

> >
> > At any given moment, nearly every "talkative" member on this list has
> > either enjoyed my methods (usually when it is "on their side"), or hated
> > them (usually when they are on the other end).
> >
> > After all, I get the impression (feeling) when reading you and Mr.
> > Fullmer's writings on this particular subject that not only have you
> > made up your minds (which precludes discussion, only allowing lecture),
> > and to heck with the facts. Also, I've picked up a distinct bias against
> > men in the thread.
>
> ASSHOLE, HOW CAN YOU WRITE THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE PICKED UP ON IS A DISTINCT
> BIAS AGAINST RAPISTS, WHO YOU VIOLENCE, OR THE THREAT OF IT TO SERVER
THEIR
> OWN INTERESTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.
>
> WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU PUT YOUSELF!!!! IN THAT GROUP, BILL??!! WHY THE
> HELL??!!

I haven't "put" myself in any group. You, Mr. Fullmer are attempting to
classify me.

> >
> > Unfortunately, this bias as led to a lot of laws that are at least as
> > harmful, if not much more so than rape.
>
> UHH, BILLY (MR. ANDERSEN) IF A HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, UNDER THE
> PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY.
>
> WHAT'S MORE OFFENSIVE THAN RAPE, SHORT OF MURDER AND TORTURE. PRICE
> CONTROLS, MAYBE??!!

Lifetime Enslavement?

> >Despite Mr. Fullmer's beliefs, the discussions here have little to do
with
> >promoting liberty.
>
> NO SHIT, BILL, WITH RAPE BEING JUSTIFIED.

Only in your eyes, Mr. Fullmer, as you seem incapable of realizing that
observation is not equivocation or justification.

>
> > Damned near nothing, really. Nobody, despite the fraudulent
> > claims of Mr. Fullmer, is here claiming rape should be legal.
>
> WHAT CLAIMS HAVE I MADE WHICH A FRADULENT, BILL??!! UHH, IT'S TRUE, I'VE
> NOT READ THAT RAPE SHOULD BE LEGAL. THE BIGGIE IS, I'VE READ NOTHING FROM
> YOU OR FROM ROBERT THAT IT IS IMMORAL, AND THAT IT IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF
> THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY.!!!!!
>
> > Since nobody is arguing rape should become legal, there is
> > no liberty implication.
>
> BULLSHIT, BILL, IF ROBERT ARGUES THAT A RAPEE VIOLATES THE LIBERTY OF THE
> RAPIST BY "IMPOSING" HER SELF-DEFNSE ON HIM - THERE IS A BIGTIME LIBERTY
> IMPLICATION, AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE "LEGAL IMPLICATIONS" ARE IN
> AFGANISTAN!!!!

Nobody here has made the argument that a rapee defending hirself is
violating a liberty, just made the observation that there is an
imposition. yet you refuse to see that. As well, nobody ha m entioned
anything about legal implications if Afghanistan .. another STRAW MAN
argument (a logical fallacy) from you, Mr. Fullmer.

>
> I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT STATUTORY RAPE BILL. I'D STILL BE IN PRISON IF I'D
> BEEN CAUGHT. CONSENT IS THE KEY TO THE QUESTION, AND IT IS THE KEY TO THE
> PRINICIPLE OF LIBERTY - WHATEVER AGE.

OK, so what about the cases where a person (regardless of age) is unable
to provide consent? I have given that as a specific example of a case of
rape w/o violence, and all you have said is that it is somehow a
derivative, and thus violence.

Here, let me give you another example. Real life scenario, not made up.

A man and a woman meet at a dance club. They seem to hit it of well. No
drinking is involved. After getting a little physical with each other,
he asks if she would like to go back to his place for sex. She says yes,
they go, they do. Case closed, right? After all, he made no threats
whatsoever, asked her, and she said yes.

Not so.

Later on she says he raped her. Did he hit you or threaten you in any
way? she is asked. No, not really, she replies. Well in what way did he
rape you? "He's a fairly big guy (he works out professionally), and I
thought if I said no, he might threaten me".

She judged his size to mean he *might* threaten her. This is
unfortunately not an isolated, or even rare incident. I have been told
by crisis counselors that this is quite common. Now tell me, where was
the violence? Who's "rights" were abrogated?

>
> FOR A LOGICIAN, BILL, YOU INTRRODUCE LOTS OF EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT.
>
> I'VE BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE VIOLENT RAPE OF AN ADULT FEMALE, NOT GIVEING
> CONSENT. YOU AND ROBERT BOTH KNOW THAT!!

No, you assumed we knew that what you were saying, and what you meant
were separate. You said rape, *and* you said "ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT!!".
You also got absolutely livid about the idea that someone could be raped
w/o violence.

Though I disagree with Robert that the threat of violence is not force,
not all rape (even disregarding statutory crap) involves violence (which
IMO includes the threat of it).

> SO, BILL, CUT IT WITH THE EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT. WRITE ME AND THE GROUP UP
> WITH AN EXPRESSION OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT A MALE RAPEING AN ADULT FEMALE
> WITHOUT CONSENT, USING VIOLENCE, OR THREATS OF IT.

I have, you just choose to ignore it.

So, what about the other cases of rape that were posted? What about the
case of using deception, or taking advantage of someone not able to give
consent at the time (or at all)? No violence there, so maybe you don't
are about that?

> NEITHER YOU OR ROBERT HAVE CHECKED IN ON THAT QUESTION. I DON'T EXPECT
> ROBERT TO, BUT I HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR YOU.

I have, you just refuse to read them by your own admission.

> PS YEAH, I'M A TOTAL NUTCASE. I JUST TALKED TO MICHELLE ON THE PHONE. I
> HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT FEMALES COULD RAPE
> MALES WAS PURE BULLSHIT, GIVEN THAT THE LITTLE HEAD ONLY RISES OF ITS
> OWN ACCORD. SHE SCREAMED AT ME. SHE WAS HELL BENT ON CLAIMING FEMALES
> CAN RAPE MALES. GIVEN THAT ARGUMENT, ALL I CAN DO IS ROTFALMAO!!!!,
AND
> FEEL TRULY LONELY, INTELLECTUALY, AND ALL OF THE REST............

Sometimes men will experience an erection or ejaculate during their
assaults as an involuntary response to physical sensation, intense fear
or pain. Less so, but in women it happens as well. It is sad that you
are so biased against men in this case, Mr. Fullmer. The idea that
*only* men can commit rape is highly sexist. If you feel lonely as a
result of that, I can not feel sorry for you, and would even take some
small amount of ... satisfaction, that you are alone in that.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ROBERT, DO YOU THINK I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT LAROUCHE......
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:57:44 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ROBERT,

YOU CONTINUE TO DISMAY ME.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK, LIBERTARIAN THAT I AM, THAT I COULD POSSIBLY GIVE
A FUCK ABOUT WHAT LAROCHE HAS TO SAY.

IT'S TRUE, THOUGH, LAROCHE POINTS OUT THE DIFFERENCES 'TWEEN ARISTOTLIEANS
AND PLATONISTS. WHICH ARE YOU, ROBERT, NOT THAT I NEED TO ASK.

YOU WRITE UP *THIS* GROUP WITH WISDOM FROM LAROUCHE.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU'RE A SICK FUCKER, ROBERT. HAVE I SAID THAT BEFORE?? (GRINNING,
CONFRONTED WITH SHIT).

QUOTING LAROUCHE, EH??! THAT'S THE FINAL FOR ME. YOU'RE TRULY ARE SICK!!

LF

on 10/9/02 10:32 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:
>
>> Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>>
>> Larry Fullmer previously wrote:
>>>> ps uhh, bill, i notice you using the word fascism these days. do
> you
>>>> happen to remember what a battle you put up with me a few yers
> ago, claiming
>>>> the "evil" was socialism, not fascism???
>>
>> And, you replied:
>>> Yes, I do. Fascism and socialism are not synonyms, nor are they
>>> co-dependent. Socialism wants my two cows, fascism instead tells em
> what
>>> to do with my cows, when to do it, and where.
>>> Fascism is for the state, socialism is for the society.
>>
>> Bill, this confuses me a great deal. You seem to be falling into the
>> same trap that many others do, that there really is a "right vs.
>> left". (Right meaning fascism, while left signifies "socialism").
>> Libertarians rarely if ever would make serious distinctions between
>> the two evils, since both groups want to control government for their
>> own purposes, that is, to control everyone else.
>
> Just because we're opposed to both doesn't mean they're not also opposed
> to each other.
>
>> Libertarians usually don't wish to discuss social issues in terms of
>> "right vs. left".
>
> True, because we have our own axe to grind. So we could ignore the
> distinctions. However, I think an understanding of them could be
> useful.
>
>> There are admittedly a couple of good models that
>> still accept such a normative approach to defining political and
>> social realities. The best one I can think of at the moment was first
>> posed by the late Gary Allen, a political analyst in his own right.
>> But he radically changed the definitions of what constituted right vs.
>> left. On Allen's scale, the right was anarchy, or NO government at
>> all. On the left was TOTAL government. Allen rightly knew that both
>> socialism and fascism were the embodiment of government solutions to
>> social problems, and wanted to part of the silly debate. His scale is
>> at least what most libertarians today might still accept as a valid
>> differentiation in an effort to define the nature of political
>> (government) power. I have a great deal of respect for Allen's model.
>
> Andrew Melechinsky must've also, because he distributed copies of such a
> scale. I don't know whether he cribbed it from Gary Allen or not.
>
>> On the other hand, the LP and most libertarians (with the small "l")
>> seem to be gravitating toward another model, that recognizes neither a
>> right or left approach, such as the small quiz advertised by the LP
>> and other libertarian organizations. There is the "economic"
>> questions, then the "social" questions, to determine if you are a
>> libertarian, an authoritarian, and various other mixes. It too is very
>> accurate, and does a pretty good job in defining what individual
>> really believe, but the AXIOM in this case is LIBERTY!
>
> There are still other ways of modeling these things.
>
> In Lyndon LaRouche's classification scheme, libertarians, communists,
> and fascists are all on the "Aristotelian" end of the scale, with him at
> the opposite, "Platonist" end. The same way the differences between
> fascist and communist are of relatively little consequence to
> libertarians (although of enormously important between each other),
> LaRouchians see libertarians in that mix as well, with little
> significant difference between us, as opposed to themselves! It all
> depends what's important to you.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: STRAP ONS........
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:34:00 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

'CHELLE,

I WAS TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY HEARING FROM YOU THAT FEMALES CAN RAPE MALES.

TOTALLY!!! WANNA DEFEND THAT??

AS I SEE IT NOW, IT COULD ONLY BE DONE WITH A STRAP ON, AND A GUN.

DEFEND YOUR BULLSHIT, MICHELLE!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: STRAP ONS........
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:32:18 -0600
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Larry,
Sorry to hear that you have led such a sheltered life by your response
below.
The truth is ,a lot of young males have had their first sexual experiance at
the hands of motherly and grandmotherly types. If you ever had a newspaper
route, mowed lawns, raked leaves, or shoveled snow, you would know they are
out there, and given the opportunity they will take advantage of the
sitution.

Side note: Just want you to know that I'm prejudiced, I hate drunk people
when I'm sober and sober people when I'm drunk. When you're drinkin you
ain't thinkin. As you know, people under the influence are difficult to
communicate with, and sometimes it's nearly impossible to. So may I suggest
a less vino and a lot less vulgarities. It doe's not become you. You might
want to use "feed the spooks" words instead of your fourletter french.
www.c4i.org/erehwon/spookwords.html

Your Friend, Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: STRAP ONS........

> 'CHELLE,
>
> I WAS TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY HEARING FROM YOU THAT FEMALES CAN RAPE MALES.
>
> TOTALLY!!! WANNA DEFEND THAT??
>
> AS I SEE IT NOW, IT COULD ONLY BE DONE WITH A STRAP ON, AND A GUN.
>
> DEFEND YOUR BULLSHIT, MICHELLE!!
>
> LF
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: MICHELLE, IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM A WOMAN CAN RAPE A MAN.....
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:51:37 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

YEAH, MICHELLE,

I SCREAM ABOUT PURE BULLSHIT, WHEN I RUN ACROSS IT.

A WOMAN CAN RAPE A MAN????!! BILLY SAYS SO, AND SO DO YOU.

YOU'RE BOTH FULLY FULL OF BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, I WANT MY VERY OWN DICK TO RISE FOR ME.
I'M PLAYING A BIT, BUT THERE IS TRUTH IN IT. WHEN I POINT A 38 AT MAY SMALL
HEAD, IT DOESN'T GIVE THE SLIGHTEST FUCK. HE JUST LIES THERE. MAYBE I
OUGHTA FORCE HIM TO EAT VIAGRA??

YOU, SAD TO SAY, ROBERT AND BILL, CONFUSE THE ISSUE OF INITATED VIOLENCE.

TOO FUCKING BAD!!!!!!!!

I MAY BE A TOTAL NUTCASE, MICHELLE, BUT MY DICK DOES NOT RISE UNLESS IT
CHOOSES TO. FORCE AND VIOLENCE ARE TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT, (UNLESS, OF
COURSE, AT THE MOMENT, THE SMALL HEAD IS INTERESTED IN MASOCHISM, AND RISES
VOLUNTARILY).

MICHELLE, GIVEN THIS ISSUE, YOU ARE AS FULL-OF-SHIT AS ROBERT AND BILL!!!!

CHRIST!!!!!!!

EVERYBODY WANTS TO DEFEND RAPE, AS A POSSIBILITY AT LEAST, ****EVEN****
MICHELLE!!!!!!!!!!

CHRIST!!!!!!!!

LF

on 10/10/02 1:32 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Larry,
>
> LF
>
> PS YEAH, I'M A TOTAL NUTCASE. I JUST TALKED TO
> MICHELLE ON THE PHONE.
> I
> HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT
> FEMALES COULD
> RAPE
> MALES WAS PURE BULLSHIT, GIVEN THAT THE LITTLE HEAD
> ONLY RISES OF
> ITS
> OWN ACCORD. SHE SCREAMED AT ME. SHE WAS HELL BENT
> ON CLAIMING
> FEMALES
> CAN RAPE MALES. GIVEN THAT ARGUMENT, ALL I CAN DO
> IS ROTFALMAO!!!!,
> AND
> FEEL TRULY LONELY, INTELLECTUALY, AND ALL OF THE
> REST............
>
>
> Your powers of exaggeration and distortion never cease
> to amaze me. I didn't scream at you - or even raise
> my voice. I simply gave you my opinion about Bill's
> statement in the calm, rational voice I always use.
> YOU hung up on ME because I had the audacity to
> disagree with you.
>
> I told you that I think it is quite uncommon for a
> woman to rape a man and I also think it's a difficult
> thing to do. However, I do think it's possible seeing
> as how becoming physically aroused and wanting to have
> sex are two separate (though related) things.
>
> Screamed at you? The only person who is screaming (as
> usual), Larry, is you, with your inability to tolerate
> any differences of opinion.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: MICHELLE, IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM A WOMAN CAN RAPE A MAN.....
Date: 10 Oct 2002 10:57:16 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 03:51, larry fullmer wrote:
> YEAH, MICHELLE,
>
> I SCREAM ABOUT PURE BULLSHIT, WHEN I RUN ACROSS IT.

Then you'd better scream about this post, because it is full of it.

And so are you.

>
> A WOMAN CAN RAPE A MAN????!! BILLY SAYS SO, AND SO DO YOU.
>
> YOU'RE BOTH FULLY FULL OF BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
>
> EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, I WANT MY VERY OWN DICK TO RISE FOR ME.
> I'M PLAYING A BIT, BUT THERE IS TRUTH IN IT. WHEN I POINT A 38 AT MAY
SMALL
> HEAD, IT DOESN'T GIVE THE SLIGHTEST FUCK. HE JUST LIES THERE. MAYBE I
> OUGHTA FORCE HIM TO EAT VIAGRA??

Such a narrow mind.

>From the "Daily Olympian" Sunday, June 29, 1997 - Section C page 3

The first woman in Spokane County to be convicted of raping a man could
face up to 30 years in prison. A seven-woman; five-man Superior Court
jury on Friday found Theresa S. guilty of first-degree rape and second
degree assault. Theresa S., 36, was accused of torturing the 42 year old
man at her east Spokane apartment from September to January. The victim
was punched, chained, burned, raped, and threatened with a knife. He
finally escaped and called police on January 17.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: SEPARATE THINGS, EH, AROUSAL AND WANTING...........!!
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:56:49 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

MICHELLE,

on 10/10/02 1:32 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> However, I do think it's possible seeing
> as how becoming physically aroused and wanting to have
> sex are two separate (though related) things.

SEPRATE THINGS. MY ASS!!!!!!!!! RELATED,EH?!!!!! NO SHIT!!!!!

YOUR DISTINCTIONS ARE AS FINE (AND AS WORTHLESS, PENDING ARGUMENT, AS ARE
BILL'S AND ROBERT'S).

PHYSICAL AROUSAL IS CONSENT, MICHELLE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT
THAT, WOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!!

LF!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SEPARATE THINGS, EH, AROUSAL AND WANTING...........!!
Date: 10 Oct 2002 11:17:03 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 03:56, larry fullmer wrote:
> MICHELLE,
>
>
> on 10/10/02 1:32 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > However, I do think it's possible seeing
> > as how becoming physically aroused and wanting to have
> > sex are two separate (though related) things.
>
> SEPRATE THINGS. MY ASS!!!!!!!!! RELATED,EH?!!!!! NO SHIT!!!!!
>
> YOUR DISTINCTIONS ARE AS FINE (AND AS WORTHLESS, PENDING ARGUMENT, AS ARE
> BILL'S AND ROBERT'S).
>
> PHYSICAL AROUSAL IS CONSENT, MICHELLE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT
> THAT, WOULD YOU!!!!!!!!!!

She knows a great deal more about it than you! That puts here in a class
above most women, as it is more often that the woman does not grasp
that, yet the man does.

It has been proven that in BOTH men and women, their bodies can exhibit
the characteristics of arousal even when the person does not desire it.

Your argument here that arousal constitutes consent is very, very
contrary to the scientific knowledge about how the sexual response cycle
runs in both men and women. Both men and women can be physically aroused
even when they do not want to be. You saying that physical arousal is
consent is tantamount to saying that a person can not be raped if their
body responds -- which it is designed to do!

What you just asserted would mean, if true, that a person getting drunk
(or stoned, or just plain asleep) and then "taken advantage of" was not
raped, since in most cases the body responds to the physical act with
physical arousal.

In fact, the attitude you demonstrate here is typical, dangerous, and
untenable. it has been estimated by many researchers that as few as 1 in
20 men are raped, and as high as 1 in 12. Of that between between 2 and
25% are raped by a woman (given the various scenarios). Men are less
likely to report a rape than women, for precisely the attitude you
display here (as well as in the case of male-male rape they tend to
question their sexuality as a result --which is also common in women. A
woman raped by another woman often questions her own sexuality after the
fact, and a woman that is aware of having a sexually aroused response
during the rape questions whether or not she "liked the rape").

Women sexual abusers have tv movies and mini-series written about them,
demonstrative of your biased attitude. For example, Mary Kay LeTourneau,
the former school teacher serving time for having an affair with one of
her students (and ultimately bearing him two children), never would have
generated headlines and a made-for-TV movie, if she had been male and
her victim female. Stitch the sex of the players in the classic "Lolita"
and tell me if it would be the same movie.

Facts are that of the female -> male rapists, they tend to do it to
children, with ~12% of victim under-6 rapes being perpetrated by women.

Mr. Fullmer, of all that I have seen, you have now come the closest to
"justifying" rape by saying that physical arousal constitutes consent.
It is a fact that consent is not required for arousal.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Social pressures
Date: 10 Oct 2002 12:58:22 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 23:32, Michelle wrote:

> Me:
> Most of the time I do like the way you communicate.
> It's only when you seem to just be trying to be
> contrary that I get annoyed. (I, other hand, have
> noooo annoying qualities whatsoever. ;) )

;^)

> Some of the things we've talked up I do have my mind
> pretty well "made up" about - like the definition of
> "impose." I think it's sloppy to talk about all
> assertions of will or uses of force as "impositions"
> and that doing so isn't in keeping with common usage
> of the word. But I'm happy enough to "agree to

That's why I strive for understanding of words. As I told Mr. Fullmer,
where I am from, the word impose is not commonly used to mean always bad
or "without right". Especially on a list where we have people from all
over the world involved, it is the fallacy of culture to assume that the
way we use a word in our environment is the same everywhere. English is
dastardly in that it has too many words with multiple meanings.

> disagree" if it's obvious no resolution is going to be
> reached on a topic. I don't think I've been lecturing
> anyone about anything in this thread. (Well, okay,
> maybe I've "lectured" Robert about needing to support
> his points, but I guess that lecturing tendency is a
> hazard of my job: I'm always telling my students that
> the statements in their essays need to "be more
> specific," "explained further," or "be better
> supported.")
>
>
> You:
> Also, I've picked up a distinct bias
> against
> men in the thread.
>
> Me:
> Rape is primarily a male crime - so I guess talking
> about it may seem to be "male bashing." But even
> though I find it deplorable how frequently men rape
> women, that doesn't mean I'm anti-men. And it
> certainly doesn't mean that I'm unaware of or don't
> care about legal biases against men or various
> negative social attitudes about men.
>
> (One of the essays I assign my students to write deals
> with social pressures people face. Usually with that
> assignment I get LOTS of essays from students -
> usually female, but sometimes even male - about the
> pressures women face to be thin and/or beautiful.
> This is definitely a major pressure women face.
> However, I have never ONCE received an essay from a
> student about the enormous social pressures men face
> to earn money, earn status, and/or be "successful."
> And I think the pressure on men to succeed is just as
> strong as the pressure on women to be physically
> attractive. Unfortunately, most people don't even
> seem to realize that men DO face that pressure.)

I am curious, what "level" are your students? Are we talking Jr. High,
Sr. High, collegiate? I would surmise that in the case of the first two,
the boys have not yet encountered the pressure of work/status or being a
success -- outside of sports and academic endeavors. I know that as a
student in pre-collegiate level academia the pressure to succeed was
nothing compared to what it is when you go out into the "real world".
Though I could write at length now about these pressures, and the
intricate nuances of how they are and are perpetuated, I could only have
conjectured in high school on them.

Even then, the the pervading attitude of society dismisses the pressure,
so it would not suprise me that they don't see it. An alternative would
be that it is not generally accepted for a male to say he is
experiencing such pressure. Being labeled "weak" or "sissy" or "too in
touch with his feminine side", is just as much one of those pressures we
are talking about.

It is a twisted, sordid world ...

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Social pressures
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > (One of the essays I assign my students to write
> deals
> > with social pressures people face. Usually with
> that
> > assignment I get LOTS of essays from students -
> > usually female, but sometimes even male - about
> the
> > pressures women face to be thin and/or beautiful.
> > This is definitely a major pressure women face.
> > However, I have never ONCE received an essay from
> a
> > student about the enormous social pressures men
> face
> > to earn money, earn status, and/or be
> "successful."
> > And I think the pressure on men to succeed is just
> as
> > strong as the pressure on women to be physically
> > attractive. Unfortunately, most people don't even
> > seem to realize that men DO face that pressure.)
>
> I am curious, what "level" are your students? Are we
> talking Jr. High,
> Sr. High, collegiate?

They're college level and of a great age range: some
are still in high school and getting college credit;
others are in the 60s.

I would surmise that in the
> case of the first two,
> the boys have not yet encountered the pressure of
> work/status or being a
> success -- outside of sports and academic endeavors.
> I know that as a
> student in pre-collegiate level academia the
> pressure to succeed was
> nothing compared to what it is when you go out into
> the "real world".

It seems to me that for most people the pressures to
gain acceptance from peers by being "successful" (for
boys) or being "physically attractive" (for girls) are
just as strong - if not more strong - in high school
as later in life. In retrospect, the pressures may
not "appear" as important as later pressures, but I
think most of us take them pretty seriously when we're
in high school.

> Though I could write at length now about these
> pressures, and the
> intricate nuances of how they are and are
> perpetuated, I could only have
> conjectured in high school on them.
>
> Even then, the the pervading attitude of society
> dismisses the pressure,
> so it would not suprise me that they don't see it.
> An alternative would
> be that it is not generally accepted for a male to
> say he is
> experiencing such pressure. Being labeled "weak" or
> "sissy" or "too in
> touch with his feminine side", is just as much one
> of those pressures we
> are talking about.
>
> It is a twisted, sordid world ...

There is quite a lot made in the media (magazine
articles, books, tv movies, etc.) about the
destructive consequences of the pressures on women to
be beautiful. This makes it quite easy for women -
even teenagers - to recognize that this IS a pressure
they face. On the other hand, it seems to me that
most people don't recognize that pressures on men to
"succeed" as just as strong - and just as potentially
destructive - as the pressures on women to be
beautiful. The lack of recognition of this pressure
on men makes it difficult for even grown men to
recognize that they DO face this pressure.

And, as you point out, even if men do recognize the
pressure they probably aren't likely to talk about it
for fear of appearing "weak." Thanks to the feminist
movement people have come to recognize many of the
forms of "female powerlessness" - which is a good
thing, of course. But unfortunately many people still
don't recognize most forms of "male powerlessness."
Thinking of careers, for instance, it is much more
acceptable for a woman to enter traditionally "male"
fields than for men to enter traditionally "female"
fields. Also, when kids come along it's always the
woman's "choice" to stay home with the kids or to
continue working - it's just taken for granted that
the man will, of course, continue with his job. In
many ways, women have a lot more choices at present
than men do.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Retirement home for monkeys
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:18:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: October 10, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Why is federal health agency funding
a "Club Med" for monkeys? Libertarians ask

WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by the National Institutes of Health to spend
$24 million on a retirement facility for chimpanzees shows why America
needs a separation of science and state, Libertarians say.

"This Club Med for monkeys illustrates how easy it is for government
bureaucrats to go bananas with other people's money," said Libertarian
Party Communications Director George Getz. "Amazingly, these chimps
will get better treatment in their golden years than the chump
taxpayer."

In an effort to house 800 chimpanzees that have been "retired" after
being used in medical experiments, the National Institutes of Health
has created Chimp Haven, an animal sanctuary in Louisiana. The total
cost to taxpayers: $24 million over 10 years, or $30,000 per
chimpanzee.

Organizers say the 200-acre, forested facility - complete with fences
and moats that encircle grassy areas - is designed to provide a
"stimulating and responsive environment essential for chimpanzee
development and rehabilitation."

But Libertarians say the plan proves that even relatively non-
controversial programs such as medical research need to be taken out
of
the hands of government.

"Who would have imagined that an agency created to find cures for
cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases would end up building a
$24 million monkey house?" Getz asked. "Any private research
organization that pulled a stunt like this could be punished
immediately by donors. But it's a lot harder to withhold funding for a
government program, because the 'donors' are taxpayers who don't have
a
choice."

The solution is to separate science and state, and let individual
Americans decide which projects are worthy of funding, Libertarians
say.

"With private donors in charge, perhaps the monkeys used in
experiments would be given to a zoo, purchased by a private animal
sanctuary or even adopted by an animal-rights organization," Getz
said. "And if donors wanted to build a Taj Mahal for monkeys, they
could do it with their money, not yours."

Unfortunately, the government's urge to monkey around with tax money
isn't limited to studying primates, Libertarians point out. For
example, over the past two years the federal government has spent:

* $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska.

* $2 million to house a worm collection at the Smithsonian museum in
Washington, DC.

* $400,000 to study manure management at the National Swine Research
Center in Iowa.

* $4.2 million for a shrimp aquiculture research project in six
states.

* $400,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

It's time to put an end to such boondoggles, once and for all, Getz
said.

As for the monkey retirement center: "Let's retire the politicians who
signed off on the NIH's $27 billion budget. Lock them away in Chimp
Haven, where they'll be unable to continue their gorilla war against
the taxpayer."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Retirement home for monkeys
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I'm certainly not in favor of the government spending
money on anything, BUT insofar as government spending
goes I think there are lots worse ways the government
could spend money than on a sanctuary for chimps.

Chimpanzees are tortured in medical research
facilities and $30,000 is rather piddling reparations
to pay to our closest animal relatives after all the
agony researchers put them through. (With only 1.6%
difference in our DNA, humans are more closely related
to chimpanzees than two species of gibbons are related
- 2.2% difference - or than the North American
red-eyed vireos and white-eyed vireos are related -
2.9% difference.)

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
wrote:
> ===============================
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
> Washington DC 20037
> World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
> ===============================
> For release: October 10, 2002
> ===============================
> For additional information:
> George Getz, Communications Director
> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
> E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
> ===============================
>
> Why is federal health agency funding
> a "Club Med" for monkeys? Libertarians ask
>
> WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by the National Institutes
> of Health to spend
> $24 million on a retirement facility for chimpanzees
> shows why America
> needs a separation of science and state,
> Libertarians say.
>
> "This Club Med for monkeys illustrates how easy it
> is for government
> bureaucrats to go bananas with other people's
> money," said Libertarian
> Party Communications Director George Getz.
> "Amazingly, these chimps
> will get better treatment in their golden years than
> the chump
> taxpayer."
>
> In an effort to house 800 chimpanzees that have been
> "retired" after
> being used in medical experiments, the National
> Institutes of Health
> has created Chimp Haven, an animal sanctuary in
> Louisiana. The total
> cost to taxpayers: $24 million over 10 years, or
> $30,000 per
> chimpanzee.
>
> Organizers say the 200-acre, forested facility -
> complete with fences
> and moats that encircle grassy areas - is designed
> to provide a
> "stimulating and responsive environment essential
> for chimpanzee
> development and rehabilitation."
>
> But Libertarians say the plan proves that even
> relatively non-
> controversial programs such as medical research need
> to be taken out
> of
> the hands of government.
>
> "Who would have imagined that an agency created to
> find cures for
> cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases would
> end up building a
> $24 million monkey house?" Getz asked. "Any private
> research
> organization that pulled a stunt like this could be
> punished
> immediately by donors. But it's a lot harder to
> withhold funding for a
> government program, because the 'donors' are
> taxpayers who don't have
> a
> choice."
>
> The solution is to separate science and state, and
> let individual
> Americans decide which projects are worthy of
> funding, Libertarians
> say.
>
> "With private donors in charge, perhaps the monkeys
> used in
> experiments would be given to a zoo, purchased by a
> private animal
> sanctuary or even adopted by an animal-rights
> organization," Getz
> said. "And if donors wanted to build a Taj Mahal for
> monkeys, they
> could do it with their money, not yours."
>
> Unfortunately, the government's urge to monkey
> around with tax money
> isn't limited to studying primates, Libertarians
> point out. For
> example, over the past two years the federal
> government has spent:
>
> * $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska.
>
> * $2 million to house a worm collection at the
> Smithsonian museum in
> Washington, DC.
>
> * $400,000 to study manure management at the
> National Swine Research
> Center in Iowa.
>
> * $4.2 million for a shrimp aquiculture research
> project in six
> states.
>
> * $400,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
>
> It's time to put an end to such boondoggles, once
> and for all, Getz
> said.
>
> As for the monkey retirement center: "Let's retire
> the politicians who
> signed off on the NIH's $27 billion budget. Lock
> them away in Chimp
> Haven, where they'll be unable to continue their
> gorilla war against
> the taxpayer."
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Libertarian Party
> http://www.lp.org/
> 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100
> voice:
> 202-333-0008
> Washington DC 20037
> fax:
> 202-333-0072
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For subscription changes, please use the WWW form
> at:
> http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Plan to Sell a Home?
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion
> conference:
>
> To send messages to the list:
> liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
> To Subscribe:
> mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To Unsubscribe:
> mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To contact Moderator:
> mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> Web:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Retirement home for monkeys
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:08:25 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> I'm certainly not in favor of the government spending
> money on anything, BUT insofar as government spending
> goes I think there are lots worse ways the government
> could spend money than on a sanctuary for chimps.
>
> Chimpanzees are tortured in medical research
> facilities and $30,000 is rather piddling reparations
> to pay to our closest animal relatives after all the
> agony researchers put them through.

I wouldn't describe their treatment as torture, but typically lab work
does mess up animals in a way that makes them unsuitable as pets, unable
to care for themsleves, etc. such that often euthanasia is the only
non-cruel solution. However, chimps may be among the few animals that
come to an understanding of life as an ongoing process, and therefore
for whom death is a disappointment worse than living badly. So this is
an example of a lifelong responsibility which may be assumed by research
facilities. It's like the responsibility political units have to
maintain the roads they've built, else people are going to get hurt.

> > "With private donors in charge, perhaps the monkeys
> > used in
> > experiments would be given to a zoo, purchased by a
> > private animal
> > sanctuary or even adopted by an animal-rights
> > organization,"

Sure, they COULD be. So could private orgs. take up maintenance of a
state bldg. which is dangerously leaning and threatening those below.
They could also pay damages when someone is injured by an accident on
gov't property.

The rest of the release is mostly a cheap shot:

> > Unfortunately, the government's urge to monkey
> > around with tax money
> > isn't limited to studying primates, Libertarians
> > point out. For
> > example, over the past two years the federal
> > government has spent:
> >
> > * $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska.
> >
> > * $2 million to house a worm collection at the
> > Smithsonian museum in
> > Washington, DC.
> >
> > * $400,000 to study manure management at the
> > National Swine Research
> > Center in Iowa.
> >
> > * $4.2 million for a shrimp aquiculture research
> > project in six
> > states.
> >
> > * $400,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

It's always easy to take these things out of context and make them
appear silly. LP is hypocritical about such issues. They complained
when $5 billion was lopped out of an appropriation bill as an
insufficient gesture of fiscal restraint, but they'll single out things
like the above themselves.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ron - Re: STRAP ONS........
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:09:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hiya, ron,

damn nice to hear from you!

you're right, of course, about older females and parerboys. i'm not so sure
that should be considered rape, as u.s. law does. but i ain't interested in
arguing that right now. truly, though, i've some times not made it clear -
i've been writing about adults and consent.

more than that, i've been writing about rape, only in relation to discussing
the underlying question: is there such a thing as rational morality, and
does nature, and human nature, viewed from the perspective of reason, give
us guidance.

you're right about the alcohol thing, though. i've had the problem for some
few years, now. dunno where it came from, but it's there.

with alcohol, i find myself turning into my enemies. anger, generated by
pain, gives me an excuse to take another drink. i have far too many excuses
for that.

i figure what i need to do now is eliminate as many excuses from my life as
i can. i'm gonna un-subscribe, for the time being, at least.

i'm glad i didn't do that before i heard from you, with your sage advice.

thank you, ron,
love ya,

LF

write me privately anytime, ron.


on 10/10/02 7:32 PM, Ronald G Wittig at groverw@citlink.net wrote:

> Larry,
> Sorry to hear that you have led such a sheltered life by your response
> below.
> The truth is ,a lot of young males have had their first sexual experiance
at
> the hands of motherly and grandmotherly types. If you ever had a newspaper
> route, mowed lawns, raked leaves, or shoveled snow, you would know they
are
> out there, and given the opportunity they will take advantage of the
> sitution.
>
> Side note: Just want you to know that I'm prejudiced, I hate drunk people
> when I'm sober and sober people when I'm drunk. When you're drinkin you
> ain't thinkin. As you know, people under the influence are difficult to
> communicate with, and sometimes it's nearly impossible to. So may I
suggest
> a less vino and a lot less vulgarities. It doe's not become you. You might
> want to use "feed the spooks" words instead of your fourletter french.
> www.c4i.org/erehwon/spookwords.html
>
> Your Friend, Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
> To: <libnw@immosys.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:34 AM
> Subject: STRAP ONS........
>
>
>> 'CHELLE,
>>
>> I WAS TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY HEARING FROM YOU THAT FEMALES CAN RAPE MALES.
>>
>> TOTALLY!!! WANNA DEFEND THAT??
>>
>> AS I SEE IT NOW, IT COULD ONLY BE DONE WITH A STRAP ON, AND A GUN.
>>
>> DEFEND YOUR BULLSHIT, MICHELLE!!
>>
>> LF
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>
>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: MONKEYS ARE WAY SMARTER THAN HUMANS!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:52:53 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

SO, GROUP,

BEFORE I UNSUBSCRIBE I WANT TO WRITE:

MONKEY'S ARE WAY SMARTER THAN HUMANS, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE BONOBO
CHIMP, OUR NEAREST RELATIVE.

THEY NEVER GOT AROUND TO DISCOVERING "NUKES". NOPE. THEY USE SEX,
CONSENSUAL, TO SOLVE THEIR PROBELMS.

ONE-THIRD OF ALL PRIMATES ARE THREATENED WITH NEAR IMMEDIATE EXTNCTION, AS I
WRITE.

IF WE HUMAN PRIMATES DO THAT, WE DESERVE TO GO DOWN, AND WE WILL!! WITH
MANY OF US, EVEN IN THIS GROUP, NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS "WRONG" WITH
INITIATED AGRESSION, AND EVEN RAPE.

SEE YA,

LF

on 10/11/02 12:06 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm certainly not in favor of the government spending
> money on anything, BUT insofar as government spending
> goes I think there are lots worse ways the government
> could spend money than on a sanctuary for chimps.
>
> Chimpanzees are tortured in medical research
> facilities and $30,000 is rather piddling reparations
> to pay to our closest animal relatives after all the
> agony researchers put them through. (With only 1.6%
> difference in our DNA, humans are more closely related
> to chimpanzees than two species of gibbons are related
> - 2.2% difference - or than the North American
> red-eyed vireos and white-eyed vireos are related -
> 2.9% difference.)
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
>
>
>
> --- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
> wrote:
>> ===============================
>> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>> Washington DC 20037
>> World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
>> ===============================
>> For release: October 10, 2002
>> ===============================
>> For additional information:
>> George Getz, Communications Director
>> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
>> E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
>> ===============================
>>
>> Why is federal health agency funding
>> a "Club Med" for monkeys? Libertarians ask
>>
>> WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by the National Institutes
>> of Health to spend
>> $24 million on a retirement facility for chimpanzees
>> shows why America
>> needs a separation of science and state,
>> Libertarians say.
>>
>> "This Club Med for monkeys illustrates how easy it
>> is for government
>> bureaucrats to go bananas with other people's
>> money," said Libertarian
>> Party Communications Director George Getz.
>> "Amazingly, these chimps
>> will get better treatment in their golden years than
>> the chump
>> taxpayer."
>>
>> In an effort to house 800 chimpanzees that have been
>> "retired" after
>> being used in medical experiments, the National
>> Institutes of Health
>> has created Chimp Haven, an animal sanctuary in
>> Louisiana. The total
>> cost to taxpayers: $24 million over 10 years, or
>> $30,000 per
>> chimpanzee.
>>
>> Organizers say the 200-acre, forested facility ?
>> complete with fences
>> and moats that encircle grassy areas ? is designed
>> to provide a
>> "stimulating and responsive environment essential
>> for chimpanzee
>> development and rehabilitation."
>>
>> But Libertarians say the plan proves that even
>> relatively non-
>> controversial programs such as medical research need
>> to be taken out
>> of
>> the hands of government.
>>
>> "Who would have imagined that an agency created to
>> find cures for
>> cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases would
>> end up building a
>> $24 million monkey house?" Getz asked. "Any private
>> research
>> organization that pulled a stunt like this could be
>> punished
>> immediately by donors. But it's a lot harder to
>> withhold funding for a
>> government program, because the 'donors' are
>> taxpayers who don't have
>> a
>> choice."
>>
>> The solution is to separate science and state, and
>> let individual
>> Americans decide which projects are worthy of
>> funding, Libertarians
>> say.
>>
>> "With private donors in charge, perhaps the monkeys
>> used in
>> experiments would be given to a zoo, purchased by a
>> private animal
>> sanctuary or even adopted by an animal-rights
>> organization," Getz
>> said. "And if donors wanted to build a Taj Mahal for
>> monkeys, they
>> could do it with their money, not yours."
>>
>> Unfortunately, the government's urge to monkey
>> around with tax money
>> isn't limited to studying primates, Libertarians
>> point out. For
>> example, over the past two years the federal
>> government has spent:
>>
>> * $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska.
>>
>> * $2 million to house a worm collection at the
>> Smithsonian museum in
>> Washington, DC.
>>
>> * $400,000 to study manure management at the
>> National Swine Research
>> Center in Iowa.
>>
>> * $4.2 million for a shrimp aquiculture research
>> project in six
>> states.
>>
>> * $400,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
>>
>> It's time to put an end to such boondoggles, once
>> and for all, Getz
>> said.
>>
>> As for the monkey retirement center: "Let's retire
>> the politicians who
>> signed off on the NIH's $27 billion budget. Lock
>> them away in Chimp
>> Haven, where they'll be unable to continue their
>> gorilla war against
>> the taxpayer."
>>
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The Libertarian Party
>> http://www.lp.org/
>> 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100
>> voice:
>> 202-333-0008
>> Washington DC 20037
>> fax:
>> 202-333-0072
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For subscription changes, please use the WWW form
>> at:
>> http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> ---------------------~-->
>> Plan to Sell a Home?
>>
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>>
>> Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion
>> conference:
>>
>> To send messages to the list:
>> liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
>> To Subscribe:
>> mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> To Unsubscribe:
>> mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> To contact Moderator:
>> mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>> Web:
>> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>
>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>> Archives and Polls:
>> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
>> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: thank you, bill: Re: so, bill, you put a lot of time into it -
Re: my take on the thread
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 01:40:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

thank you, bill,

for responding to my response, to your response to michelle.

you put a lot of time into it, and i truly appreciate that.

the truth is, i found myself very much in agreement with most of what you
wrote.

i also read the exchange between you & michelle about social pressure on
males.

i agree with both of you 100%, having been there, and i greatly respect
michelle for her insight.

i strongly disagree with you about robert, and what i figure he has been
arguing for, but i could be wrong about that, too. i was greatly
dissapointed to see you rise to his defense, since he was speaking pure
bullshit, as i saw it. as he wrote, bill, he truly was arguing against
convictions, of any sort, including convictions about liberty.

but that's my take.

if i get pissed off, that gives me an excuse to take another drink. i need
to eliminate excuses. got far to many of 'em.

i'm unsubscribing, at least for a while. i got my own shit to deal with.

love ya, bill...

LF

on 10/10/02 12:31 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:16, larry fullmer wrote:
>> bill (or should i write, sarcastically "mr. andersen"),
>>
>> you put a lot of time into your respnse to michelle, as she did
responding
>> to you.
>>
>> i can't do that, at the moment. gonna have to respond to the high
points.
>>
>> snipped and interspersed below:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Well, I didn't mean you invented the definition; it's
>>>> just the definition you're choosing to use. You and
>>>> Robert are choosing to use a particular definition of
>>>> "imposed." Larry and I are choosing to use another.
>>>>
>>> Fair enough, and at least you are willing to see that, as opposed to Mr.
>>> Fullmer, who absolutely insists that it is his way, or you are a
>>> fascist.
>>
>> i disagree with even michelle, here. the word imposed has a dictionary
>> definition, which michelle has communicated to the group. and, i
believe,
>> it is a word that both you and robert understand the common definition
of.
>
> Where I come from, Mr. Fullmer, the word "impose", just like the
> dictionary definition I provided (you can go to www.dictionary.com and
> find it, btw) does not carry a "bad" connotation. It is recognized as a
> thing thing can be, but is not always.
>
>> he very well may have written that a woman defending herself from rape
was
>> violating the "liberty" of a rapist. think about it, bill! you're a
>
> I haven't seen anyone on this list make that claim, Mr. Fullmer.
>
>> logician, so you claim. maybe i should ask you, "mr. andersen" what
>> **your** definition of libert is??!!
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion. Since as you have admitted, nobody,
> especially me, is arguing that rape (even your limited definition) is
> not a violation of a woman's rights, the definition of "liberty" is to
> relevant to the discussion of principles and existence of differing
> points of view. As such, it is a red herring on your part, intentional
> or otherwise.
>
>
>>> Most of the time, Robert is under attack for challenging assumptions
>>> that others hold dear, even when the assumptions are wrong.
>>
>> UHH, BILL, DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A RAPEE HAS A RIGHT TO
>> DEFEND HERSELF FROM RAPE, WITHOUT BEING CALLED AM "IMPOSER" (WHO HAS
>> VIOLATED THE RAPISTS LIBERTY)?
>
> Nope, that is far from what I mean. I've posted what I mean. Might I
> suggest reading them.
>
>> UHHH, BILL, TELL ME ABOUT MY WRONG ASSUMPTIONS, AND WHY A RAPEE IS AN
>> "IMPOSER" (VIOLATING A RAPIST'S LIBERTY)!
>
> An imposition is not necessarily an abridgment or violation of one's
> rights. one can impose, and not violate rights. I understand that is a
> foreign concept to you, and until you are open to the concept, all that
> will be accomplished in attempting to discuss it with you will be more
> insults and references to "short dicks" or the like.
>
>> WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY "WRONG ASSUMPTIONS". YOU AIN'T HAD SQUAT TO SAY
ABOUT
>> THAT. NOT SQUAT. AND NIETHER HAS ROBERT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT RATIONAL
>
> Yes, I have. I have said so directly, that you (for example) assume that
> everyone knows exactly what you mean, and that everyone uses your chosen
> definitions of words. You ASSume much, Mr Fullmer. Check the archives,
> it's all there.
>
>> MORALITY, AND EVEN LIBERTY, IS NOTHING BUT AND OPINION "WHICH CANNOT BE
>> DEFENDED".
>
> Again, incorrect. The statement I saw regarding opinions were that they
> can not be proved, not that they can not be defended.
>
>>>
>>> For some, it may well be. Not everyone is worth communicating, or trying
>>> to, with for everyone; given certain impasses, or lack of common
>>> understandings to base things from. If you feel it is not worth your
>>> time, don't do it.
>>>
>>>> With you, on the other hand, a lot of times it feels
>>>> like your main goal is to prove how right and smart
>>>> you are and how wrong and illogical everyone else is.
>>>> A lot of times when we are conversing I don't feel
>>>> like you really care about reaching a better
>>>> understanding of a subject; it seems to me all you
>>>> really want to do is find as many "errors" or things
>>>> you can criticize in what I say.
>>>
>>> It certainly can seem that way. Just as seems all Mr. Fullmer wants to
>>> do is yell at people, call them names, talk about guns and penises and
>>> find a way to eventually say "go ahead, kick me out, I'm used to it" or
>>> "see, you don't agree with ME so YOU must be anti-libertarian."
>>
>> UHHH, BILL, I FIGURE I'VE WRITTEN THIS BEFORE. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO
QUIBBLE,
>> OR MORE, ABOUT THE **RIGHT** OF AN ADULT FEMALE TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM
RAPE
>> FALLS FAR SHORT OF BEING ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE WORD LIBERTARIAN TO
DESCRIBE
>> THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE IN THAT GROUP, WITH
>> ROBERT?
>
> You have no authority to assign me to any group, period. So do what you
> wish, it is non-binding, and I don't care.
>
>>>
>>> I am a logician by nature. As such, my goal is to eliminate logical
>>> fallacies. Does one accuse the doctor of "only" wanting to find cancer
>>> when he does breast examinations? It is not like he *wants* to find
>>> cancer pods, yet nobody pays attention until he does.
>>
>> LOGICIAN, EH?? WHERE ARE MINE?!! I AIN'T READ YOU CLAIMS, NOR YOUR
>
> See, there you go. You say I have not done things, then admit you
> haven't read where I do.
>
>> ARGUMENTS. YOU JUST WRITE UP WITH NOT ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT. REALLY!
LIKE I
>> WROTE, I FIGURE YOU KNEW DAMNED WELL I WAS WRITE ABOUT CONSENT, AS WAS
>> ROBERT.
>
> See, an incorrect assumption on your part. Again.
>
> A touch of arrogance is found here as well, one could say. After all,
> why should it be that you assume I should know what you mean, but that
> you should not assume what I mean?
>
>>
>> SOME FOLKS, BILL, AND I FEAR YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, CONFUSE LOGIC WITH
>> NITPICKING AND "WINNING". NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET!!
>>
>>
>>> I am here for my understanding. I learn by reading and
>>> watching others. Often times the best way to learn about something is to
>>> shut up and listen/read.
>>
>> i've asked ken, lowell, robert, and now you, to define liberty for me,
with
>> youall's definition. i figure that's a legitamate question, given the
>> group.
>
> You first.
>
>>
>> i've not got squat!!
>>>
>>> If I can aid others in making their case stronger, that is a nice bonus.
>>> Besides, if someone comes on and keeps saying things that are patently
>>> false, why should I sit here and say "you go, man!"??
>>
>> patently false, eh? i take that personal, given the context. give me
>> argument, you logician.
>
> I have, and you, by your own admission, do not read them., Therefore, it
> is pointless to continue to do so.
>
>>>
>>> At any given moment, nearly every "talkative" member on this list has
>>> either enjoyed my methods (usually when it is "on their side"), or hated
>>> them (usually when they are on the other end).
>>>
>>> After all, I get the impression (feeling) when reading you and Mr.
>>> Fullmer's writings on this particular subject that not only have you
>>> made up your minds (which precludes discussion, only allowing lecture),
>>> and to heck with the facts. Also, I've picked up a distinct bias against
>>> men in the thread.
>>
>> ASSHOLE, HOW CAN YOU WRITE THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE PICKED UP ON IS A
DISTINCT
>> BIAS AGAINST RAPISTS, WHO YOU VIOLENCE, OR THE THREAT OF IT TO SERVER
THEIR
>> OWN INTERESTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.
>>
>> WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU PUT YOUSELF!!!! IN THAT GROUP, BILL??!! WHY THE
>> HELL??!!
>
> I haven't "put" myself in any group. You, Mr. Fullmer are attempting to
> classify me.
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this bias as led to a lot of laws that are at least as
>>> harmful, if not much more so than rape.
>>
>> UHH, BILLY (MR. ANDERSEN) IF A HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, UNDER THE
>> PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY.
>>
>> WHAT'S MORE OFFENSIVE THAN RAPE, SHORT OF MURDER AND TORTURE. PRICE
>> CONTROLS, MAYBE??!!
>
> Lifetime Enslavement?
>
>
>>> Despite Mr. Fullmer's beliefs, the discussions here have little to do
with
>>> promoting liberty.
>>
>> NO SHIT, BILL, WITH RAPE BEING JUSTIFIED.
>
> Only in your eyes, Mr. Fullmer, as you seem incapable of realizing that
> observation is not equivocation or justification.
>
>
>>
>>> Damned near nothing, really. Nobody, despite the fraudulent
>>> claims of Mr. Fullmer, is here claiming rape should be legal.
>>
>> WHAT CLAIMS HAVE I MADE WHICH A FRADULENT, BILL??!! UHH, IT'S TRUE, I'VE
>> NOT READ THAT RAPE SHOULD BE LEGAL. THE BIGGIE IS, I'VE READ NOTHING
FROM
>> YOU OR FROM ROBERT THAT IT IS IMMORAL, AND THAT IT IS A GROSS VIOLATION
OF
>> THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY.!!!!!
>>
>>> Since nobody is arguing rape should become legal, there is
>>> no liberty implication.
>>
>> BULLSHIT, BILL, IF ROBERT ARGUES THAT A RAPEE VIOLATES THE LIBERTY OF THE
>> RAPIST BY "IMPOSING" HER SELF-DEFNSE ON HIM - THERE IS A BIGTIME LIBERTY
>> IMPLICATION, AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE "LEGAL IMPLICATIONS" ARE IN
>> AFGANISTAN!!!!
>
> Nobody here has made the argument that a rapee defending hirself is
> violating a liberty, just made the observation that there is an
> imposition. yet you refuse to see that. As well, nobody ha m entioned
> anything about legal implications if Afghanistan .. another STRAW MAN
> argument (a logical fallacy) from you, Mr. Fullmer.
>
>>
>> I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT STATUTORY RAPE BILL. I'D STILL BE IN PRISON IF
I'D
>> BEEN CAUGHT. CONSENT IS THE KEY TO THE QUESTION, AND IT IS THE KEY TO
THE
>> PRINICIPLE OF LIBERTY - WHATEVER AGE.
>
> OK, so what about the cases where a person (regardless of age) is unable
> to provide consent? I have given that as a specific example of a case of
> rape w/o violence, and all you have said is that it is somehow a
> derivative, and thus violence.
>
> Here, let me give you another example. Real life scenario, not made up.
>
> A man and a woman meet at a dance club. They seem to hit it of well. No
> drinking is involved. After getting a little physical with each other,
> he asks if she would like to go back to his place for sex. She says yes,
> they go, they do. Case closed, right? After all, he made no threats
> whatsoever, asked her, and she said yes.
>
> Not so.
>
> Later on she says he raped her. Did he hit you or threaten you in any
> way? she is asked. No, not really, she replies. Well in what way did he
> rape you? "He's a fairly big guy (he works out professionally), and I
> thought if I said no, he might threaten me".
>
> She judged his size to mean he *might* threaten her. This is
> unfortunately not an isolated, or even rare incident. I have been told
> by crisis counselors that this is quite common. Now tell me, where was
> the violence? Who's "rights" were abrogated?
>
>
>>
>> FOR A LOGICIAN, BILL, YOU INTRRODUCE LOTS OF EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT.
>>
>> I'VE BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE VIOLENT RAPE OF AN ADULT FEMALE, NOT GIVEING
>> CONSENT. YOU AND ROBERT BOTH KNOW THAT!!
>
> No, you assumed we knew that what you were saying, and what you meant
> were separate. You said rape, *and* you said "ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT!!".
> You also got absolutely livid about the idea that someone could be raped
> w/o violence.
>
> Though I disagree with Robert that the threat of violence is not force,
> not all rape (even disregarding statutory crap) involves violence (which
> IMO includes the threat of it).
>
>> SO, BILL, CUT IT WITH THE EXTRANEOUS BULLSHIT. WRITE ME AND THE GROUP UP
>> WITH AN EXPRESSION OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT A MALE RAPEING AN ADULT FEMALE
>> WITHOUT CONSENT, USING VIOLENCE, OR THREATS OF IT.
>
> I have, you just choose to ignore it.
>
> So, what about the other cases of rape that were posted? What about the
> case of using deception, or taking advantage of someone not able to give
> consent at the time (or at all)? No violence there, so maybe you don't
> are about that?
>
>> NEITHER YOU OR ROBERT HAVE CHECKED IN ON THAT QUESTION. I DON'T EXPECT
>> ROBERT TO, BUT I HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR YOU.
>
> I have, you just refuse to read them by your own admission.
>
>
>> PS YEAH, I'M A TOTAL NUTCASE. I JUST TALKED TO MICHELLE ON THE PHONE. I
>> HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER THAT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT FEMALES COULD RAPE
>> MALES WAS PURE BULLSHIT, GIVEN THAT THE LITTLE HEAD ONLY RISES OF ITS
>> OWN ACCORD. SHE SCREAMED AT ME. SHE WAS HELL BENT ON CLAIMING FEMALES
>> CAN RAPE MALES. GIVEN THAT ARGUMENT, ALL I CAN DO IS ROTFALMAO!!!!, AND
>> FEEL TRULY LONELY, INTELLECTUALY, AND ALL OF THE REST............
>
> Sometimes men will experience an erection or ejaculate during their
> assaults as an involuntary response to physical sensation, intense fear
> or pain. Less so, but in women it happens as well. It is sad that you
> are so biased against men in this case, Mr. Fullmer. The idea that
> *only* men can commit rape is highly sexist. If you feel lonely as a
> result of that, I can not feel sorry for you, and would even take some
> small amount of ... satisfaction, that you are alone in that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: you win, bill (and robert), but i get the last word.....
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:26:43 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill,

response below:

on 10/10/02 12:31 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> Where I come from, Mr. Fullmer, the word "impose", just like the
> dictionary definition I provided (you can go to www.dictionary.com and
> find it, btw) does not carry a "bad" connotation. It is recognized as a
> thing thing can be, but is not always.

first, bill, rather than picking a fight with me, which you did, you might
have asked robert what he intended to communicate with the word "impose".

my take, and i figure robert would even back me up (except that he refuses
to answer questions) is that he used the word, intentionally, exactly as it
is defined in my dictionary. he did that in a context in which he has
argued against natural law, and rational morality. remember, bill, he told
you you were *wrong* in relation to the words you put in his mouth in
relation to "convictions make convicts". he has argued that rights, and
even liberty are arbitrary "inventions", and that humans must be forced to
be free (in an all-time winning oxymorn).

i'd like to quote from my dictionary, with the 4th definition first:

4) "to put or set by as by authority: TO IMPOSE AN ARBITRARY MEANING ON
WORDS". you'd do anything to win an argument, eh, bill??!

the other meanings abbreviated: something to be obeyed or endured as in:
to impose taxes; to obtrude or thrust oneself upon others; to pass or palm
off fraudlently, or deceptively; to lay on or inflict, as in a penality.
all the other definitions are archaic, with the first one being to defraud,
cheat or decieve.

and, bill, you justified that word, in relation to a woman defending herself
from rape!!

as i've already written, hitting it again, with you defending robert's use
of the word "impose", without even asking him what he meant, you claim to
have found a non-pejorative definition for the word. i didn't consult your
dictionary. it wasn't necessary. if, "in your world" the word impose has a
non-pejorative meaning - well that tells me one helluva lot about you,
including why you wanted to argue with me about rape. "to impose an
arbitrary meaning to win an argument", is how i will paraphrase my
dictionary. and you claim to be a logician!!

so, bill, with the pain, even depression, you have generated for me, and the
consequent anger, i'm unsubscribing. that makes you a "winner". revel in
it!

just 'cause i wrote that i love you last night does not mean that i *ever*
want to talk to you again, short of a heart-felt apology.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: aggression & Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:48:07 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

criminee, michelle,

you're nearly as sick as i am, trying to talk sense to the "logician", mr.
andersen.

any act which deprives a self-owning human of what is rightfully theirs is
an aggressive act - be it depriving them of their life, or their property,
or entering a vagina without consent.

such acts reduce to "violence" and it's derivative concepts. i would think
billy could understand that, given that he has found a non-pejorative
meaning for "impose".

the truly accurate word to use is aggression. but there is no excuse for
billy quibbling about substituting violence for aggresion - except, of
course, to allow a logician to prove how smart he is, and how long his dick
is.

burgularly is agression, even if no direct violence is involved. if the
homeowner wakes up in the midst of it, or the rapee, violence ensues, with
the rapee, and the homeowner ******IMPOSING******* their "opinions" on the
agressor.

sorry, ron, gotta write: YOUR A SICK FUCKER, BILL!!!!!, NEARLY AS SICK AS
ROBERT.

FUCK-OFF, BILL!! OH, BTW, WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY??!!,
LIBERTARIAN THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE.

LF


on 10/11/02 4:55 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
>>> I've been mulling over your other example - of a
>> man
>>> having sex with a woman who is unconscious - and
>> it
>>> does come closer to the idea of "non-violent"
>> rape.
>>> It would almost certainly be a less violent rape
>> than
>>> if the woman was awake. But still, even if the
>> woman
>>> is unconscious, it's still an example of physical
>>> force and, even after thinking about it, it still
>>> seems to me to be a violent act.
>>
>> How does that fit the definition of violence or
>> violent? The use of
>> physical force is not sufficient. For example, I see
>> you provided theft
>> of a car when the owner is not around as a
>> non-violent crime. It
>> requires physical force to do so. Lack of consent
>> does not equate with
>> violence any more than lack of consent for someone
>> to joyride in
>> another's car w/o consent constitutes violence.
>
> Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
> as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
> first place - it's really about power and control.
> The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
> being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
> person is conscious during the act or not.
>
> A crime where no person is directly assaulted could be
> considered "non-violent": for example, stealing a car
> or burglarizing a house while the owner is away. If a
> criminal had to physically assault the owner to get
> the car or take something from the house it would be a
> violent crime; if no person is physically assaulted
> during the crime it's "non-violent."
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: aggression & Re: rape and violence
Date: 12 Oct 2002 10:40:33 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 23:48, larry smith wrote:

> sorry, ron, gotta write: YOUR A SICK FUCKER, BILL!!!!!, NEARLY AS SICK AS
> ROBERT.
>
> FUCK-OFF, BILL!! OH, BTW, WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY??!!,
> LIBERTARIAN THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE.

a) I thought were were leaving, another promise unfulfilled or empty
"threat" I see.
b) You said you don't want to hear from me, which means you shouldn't be
asking my questions

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: aggression & Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:37:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry smith wrote to Michelle Eilers...

> you're nearly as sick as i am, trying to talk sense to the "logician", mr.
> andersen.
> any act which deprives a self-owning human of what is rightfully theirs is
> an aggressive act - be it depriving them of their life, or their property,
> or entering a vagina without consent.

I especially like what you wrote about the reverse scenario, that is,
women raping men! I donno, that is, what might qualify for that
really. But you are correct, particularly in your use of violating
individuals against their own free will. That has to almost always
qualify as aggression, and a force of some definition although in some
case not particularly of a cognizant nature at the time.

But to lighten things up here a bit. I'll be turning 54 on October
18. I've yet to experience any particular instance in all these years
of any half-way decent-looking woman aggressively tying me down and
forcing me to have sex with her against my will! A fantasy maybe, but
certainly wouldn't qualify as a rape case at least in my mind.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THE SICKOO WRITES AGAIN - Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:04:20 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

SICK FUCK, ROBERT,

on 10/11/02 9:08 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> So then non-violent rapes are possible.

WELL, YEAH, ROBERT, IF YOU, LIKE BILLY, YOUR FRIEND, ARE HELL-BENT ON
DISTINGUISHING VIOLENCE FROM THE BROADER CONCEPT - AGGRESSION.

BUT YOU HAVE NO CONVICTIONS, EH? **YOU** ARE FREE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL
YOU WANT TO WHOEVER, WHENEVER, IN YOUR MIND. LIBERTY? IT'S JUST
RATIONIALIZATION FOR YOU!

SURE, WANT TO QUIBBLE ABOUT WORDS, NON-VIOLENT RAPES ARE POSSIBLE. DOES
THAT MAKE YOU SWOON, ROBERT. DON'T SWOON TOO EARLY. NON-AGRESSIVE RAPES
ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS, AND THERE IS NO SALVATION IF THE FEMALE IS
PASSED OUT.

NO SALVATION FOR YOU, ROBERT, LIBERTARIAN THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE.

"NON-VIOLENT RAPES ARE POSSIBLE"!!!!!!!! WHAT GENIUS THIS GROUP HAS ARRIVED
AT, WITH BILLY AND ROBERT LEADING US!!!!!! PUKE!!!!!!!

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: hey ya frank...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 04:29:32 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank,

you're a damn smart guy, trying to stay out of this discussion about rape
'tween robert, bill, michelle & I.

damn smart!!!!!!

it's a damn fine line 'tween violoence and agression. bill, robert, and
even michelle have wanted to quibble about that.

i read ya frank. you spoke sense to me, unlike most others writing on the
thread.

love ya, frank, but i'm a short-timer, given the bullshit!

i hope i didn't "impose" on ya (grin),

LF

Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Michelle Eilers...
>
> Michelle Eilers wrote:
>>> Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
>>> as an excessive use of physical force. This is
>>> particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
>>> first place - it's really about power and control.
>>> The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
>>> being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
>>> person is conscious during the act or not.
>
> You replied:
>> I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes. Or is that a defining
>> (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were about sex it wouldn't
>> count as a rape?
>
> It's about establishing whether or not consent has taken place,
> nothing more. Anything beyond that should be considered aggression,
> and thereby an initiation of force and trespass against a victim.
>
> I've honestly tried to stay out of this one. It is very perplexing
> that so much bandwidth has been generated quibbling over whether or
> not "force" is, may, or may not be present when various rapes occur!
> At issue here is when someone has been violated in such a way without
> giving his/her legal consent to be violated. The only really "grey"
> factor that I can surmise that could be present under some
> circumstances, is when a sexual act has occurred and "consent" might
> be considered legally questionable.
>
> Consent, in this case, is a form of a contract. There are several such
> conditions in which I can visualize how this might occur:
>
> 1. The victim might be intoxicated or under the influence of such a
> substance when a legally binding contract could not be established. I
> doubt if many courts of law would recognize such a contract if the
> same victim had signed under such influence (say to purchase a home,
> car, or other commodity). The degree of intoxication certainly is a
> factor of course.
>
> 2. Mentally impaired individuals who may not be capable of
> understanding the nature, or possible implications of a contract.
> Again, the degree of such cognizance to enter into a valid contract by
> a victim is another "grey" area. Likely this should be determined on a
> case by case basis.
>
> 3. Unconscious, or semi-conscious victims have certainly been
> violated, sense no consent would be possible in most cases. The
> "degree" of any consciousness is yet another "grey" area however.
>
> In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this
> as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little doubt
> that trespass occurs in every sexual act. Is it lawful trespass, or
> did it rather occur as a result of wrongful violation of another
> without their legal consent?
>
> Certainly therefore, in this case, physical violence has indeed
> occurred, since a person was physically violated without their
> consent. This is where the wrongful use of force comes into play. It
> is just as physically violent in the event a rape occurs when the
> victim does not have the capacity to defend his/her self. The rapist
> in this case forced him/herself upon a victim when when the victim
> could not mentally or physically defend themselves against the
> aggression.
>
> The rape itself is the violent act. Other violent acts might also
> simultaneously occur in an otherwise fully capable individual, such as
> hitting, subduing, and even binding of the victim. But as long a rape
> is itself considered a violent act, whether a victim was mentally
> conscious or cognizant of the rape is of little consequence to the
> physical and violent nature of the act itself.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey ya frank...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:46:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Larry!

Great to hear from you again, as always. What the hell is this "smith"
thing?

larry smith wrote to Frank Reichert...

> you're a damn smart guy, trying to stay out of this discussion about rape
> 'tween robert, bill, michelle & I.

All I can say is that it was becoming a 'war on words', rather than an
acknowledgement of violent aggression. Which is why I was hoping that
it could have been resolved without me getting in the middle of it at
all. I was hoping cooler heads might prevail in other words. Obviously
that didn't happen.

> it's a damn fine line 'tween violoence and agression. bill, robert, and
> even michelle have wanted to quibble about that.

Well, let's just say that rape itself, and in itself, constitutes a
violent act. It's pure aggression against another human being. Whether
than person is conscious or not is really not the overriding question.
At least, morally, it shouldn't be. Because someone is sleeping at
home at night, in his/her own bed, and doesn't feel the pain of a 45
calibre bullet passing through his/her skull, doesn't mean that no
violent act hasn't occurred.

> i read ya frank. you spoke sense to me, unlike most others writing on the
> thread.

I'm glad some people noticed. I also got private email from others
supporting my insistence that rape itself is a violent act. For that I
am grateful.

> love ya, frank, but i'm a short-timer, given the bullshit!

Yea, I know. There's always bullshit, but that's the very nature of
the world we live in isn't it? Why be a short-timer? You can't resign
yourself really from the rest of the world, so why resign yourself
from the microcosm of that on Liberty Northwest? Confront it when you
have an opportunity to do so. Some listen, others are mainly trying
to engage in word games and mousemilking exercises, or so it seems.

> i hope i didn't "impose" on ya (grin),

Understood the syllogism. You have so much "imposed" on me, as you
probably have those who want to re-define rape as "maybe"
non-aggressive (at least "sometimes"). I get my jollies off thinking
about how they will really choose to deal with this one!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank you, bill
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:36:40 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Bill Anderson...

> i strongly disagree with you about robert, and what i figure he has been
> arguing for, but i could be wrong about that, too. i was greatly
> dissapointed to see you rise to his defense, since he was speaking pure
> bullshit, as i saw it. as he wrote, bill, he truly was arguing against
> convictions, of any sort, including convictions about liberty.

I have no idea why you are so surprised, honestly. Robert's chief game
usually appears to be merely to play on words (at least as long as he
can get by with it), and exercises in mousemilking frankly. Sometimes
Bill gets in on the same act, so what can I say? On the other hand,
Bill often seems to have real principled "convictions", but they too
are frequently lost in mindless statistics and again, even MORE word
games that seem to endlessly go on around here these days.

For me, "Philosophy" is what rules at the end of the day. "What DO YOU
really believe?" has to be the overriding question. Give me some
examples of what cultures have truly survived based entirely upon a
consensus of mere statistics? Greece, Rome, Western Civilization? The
Soviet Union? Ideas survive because they are dynamic and prevail over
a very long period of time, transcending really, many civilizations.
I guess I consider Cicero the real hero, or at least give him a lot of
historical credit, in a lot of ways, in defining what really matters
in terms of human history.

We are not going to migrate very far on the current political
spectrum, if we have no philosophical basis on which we hang our hat.
Are there laws in human nature that prevail? Sure there are! Lot's of
'em! Rape is a violent act, for example; always has been, always will
be! Certainly, natural law, gives us hundreds of years of examples
that that is the case -- always. The same is true in the case of the
wanton destruction (murder) of another human being. We can simply go
on and on with examples, but in reality human history embraces
"natural law". In the converse, "natural law" is a part of human
recorded history. Again, Cicero got it really right, and that was a
long, long time ago.

If you really want to discuss libertarian history, you don't
necessarily start out with Ann Rand. You start out with real
philosophical thinkers such as Cicero, John Locke and others who
really defined natural law in terms of the human species. At some
point, you really do have to address the issue of "inalienable rights"
on the basis of such recorded history.

Maybe that's why I don't usually get so hung up in discussions on
whether rape can "sometimes" be non-aggressive. Such semantics are a
useless exercise that defy common reason and moral history.

To summarize this a bit, aggression is aggression, regardless of the
play on words that some feel justified in using to further their own
parochial interests. Can anyone be "free" when predators choose such
words to justify their own assault upon another human being, or at
least an assault by someone else using this rationale for
justifications for their violent acts?

Maybe that might be really what is lacking after all, e.g.: a central
and accepted philosophy. How can we form any movement at all when we
fail to recognize a central reference point in terms of philosophical
agreement? Just maybe, we are making the very same mistakes here that
we have long accused the Republicans and Democrats of making, by
creating a group, party, or organization that has the largest tent!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: USAn hopes, fears -- now vs. late 1970s
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:41:55 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I've been thinking again about how things are for liberty in the
USA now vs. the late 1970s, only this time I focused on
anticipation rather than the way things are or were.

If you look at J. Neal Schulman's novel of that time, "Alongside
Night", the fears & hopes expressed therein seem rather quaint now.
There's not much fear in the USA now of double digit inflation or
the prospect of rationing of important goods or services, let alone
mass confiscations. We've made so much progress in the TRENDS in
economic freedom that such fears are safely behind us. Taxes are
still a problem, but seem less of one given the economic growth
that's occurred in the meantime. The major big problem is still
the Social Security overhang.

Today's fears center more around sporadic confiscations in the form
of expanding use of eminent domain and forfeitures, and of lawsuits
and settlements for supposed torts that really aren't. We fear the
opportunistic grab rather than the systematic socialization of the
economy. I think that's an improvement.

However, the hope expressed in "Alongide Night" and by some other
libertarians -- that the underground economy could be the basis for
a parallel society that could displace the state -- looks farther
fetched than ever. So does the idea we had that explicitly
libertarian politics would grow rapidly and become a force to be
reckoned with. Both the growth of the Libertarian Party and the
inroads of libertarian influence in the Republican Party peaked
fairly early.

The tax revolt was flying high in the late 1970s, but its momentum
did not continue. In the middle 1970s one's sense was that
narcotics prohibition was on its way out, albeit slowly. The
present War on Drugs didn't seem likely then. Studies of medical
marijuana were under way, but they wound up being used as most of
the basis for licensing Marinol rather than cannabis itself.
Cocaine was having increased acceptability, but that situation was
reversed a few years later.

I'd have to say that right now the fear of dying as one of many in
a great deliberate act of destruction is greater now than it was
then. Perhaps in another decade it won't seem that way any more.
However, the fear from 1979-80 of resurrection of a military draft
is dead and buried, no matter what wars may be in the offing.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: USAn hopes, fears -- now vs. late 1970s
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:21:07 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> I've been thinking again about how things are for liberty in the
> USA now vs. the late 1970s, only this time I focused on
> anticipation rather than the way things are or were.

So, what's THIS supposed to mean? I suspect what you define here as
"anticipation" has much to do with what YOU anticipated. At least in
the early 1970s, cigarettes were sold around 35 cents a pack almost
anywhere. Today, they are about $4-5 a pack and going up rapidly. I
certainly didn't anticipate that, all in taxes to a government that
does NOT represent me. If you don't, or didn't smoke in the early
1970s, then you probably didn't anticipate this, or at least it wasn't
particularly meaningful to you at the time, or not now at least.

> If you look at J. Neal Schulman's novel of that time, "Alongside
> Night", the fears & hopes expressed therein seem rather quaint now.
> There's not much fear in the USA now of double digit inflation or
> the prospect of rationing of important goods or services, let alone
> mass confiscations. We've made so much progress in the TRENDS in
> economic freedom that such fears are safely behind us.

Really? I don't know what planet YOU live on. The economic viability
in the US for inflation, let alone the equity markets, are anything
but stable. This may all change tomorrow, and it will, particularly
with the Shrub's<tm> shoot from the hip form of foreign policy. You
obviously haven't followed the stock market, particularly since around
last March. To counter your assertion, there is tremendous fear on
the part of institutional investors to engage themselves and their
clients into the current US economy at the moment. They've been
sitting on the sidelines since September 11, 2001. And so far, they
haven't budged. They've dumped the airlines, the tech sector, and
numerous others, including the auto industry, not to mention financial
institutions such as J.P. Morgan and the rest of them in mass.

> Taxes are
> still a problem, but seem less of one given the economic growth
> that's occurred in the meantime.

EXCUSE ME! WHAT ECONOMIC GROWTH, PRAY TELL, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? No
one else sees any economic growth in the last couple of years! I have
no idea WHAT your visions of economic growth may be, but I do know
that the financial community certainly doesn't share your delusions.

> The major big problem is still the Social Security overhang.

Dream on. That was already a foregone conclusion, actually decades
ago. Nothing particularly new or even relevant to what many economic
analysts have been saying for several decades now. It may be finally
coming home to roost, but that is hardly anything new or instructive,
now is it?

> Today's fears center more around sporadic confiscations in the form
> of expanding use of eminent domain and forfeitures, and of lawsuits
> and settlements for supposed torts that really aren't. We fear the
> opportunistic grab rather than the systematic socialization of the
> economy. I think that's an improvement.

Well, I'm tickled shitless, and glad that you do. But it doesn't mean
very much either.

What does this have to do with the loss of freedom? EVERYTHING. It
has more to do however with the prostitute state of the US judicial
system, something I've been talking about for decades! So, this is
also nothing particularly revealing, or new.

> However, the hope expressed in "Alongide Night" and by some other
> libertarians -- that the underground economy could be the basis for
> a parallel society that could displace the state -- looks farther
> fetched than ever.

Glad you recognized it, as such anyway. But it may in time become a
greater reality for many than you might imagine right now.

> So does the idea we had that explicitly
> libertarian politics would grow rapidly and become a force to be
> reckoned with. Both the growth of the Libertarian Party and the
> inroads of libertarian influence in the Republican Party peaked
> fairly early.

So? Isn't this an ongoing, rather than a static problem?

> The tax revolt was flying high in the late 1970s, but its momentum
> did not continue. In the middle 1970s one's sense was that
> narcotics prohibition was on its way out, albeit slowly. The
> present War on Drugs didn't seem likely then. Studies of medical
> marijuana were under way, but they wound up being used as most of
> the basis for licensing Marinol rather than cannabis itself.
> Cocaine was having increased acceptability, but that situation was
> reversed a few years later.

Perhaps so, but how does this figure into the economic picture you
raised above?

> I'd have to say that right now the fear of dying as one of many in
> a great deliberate act of destruction is greater now than it was
> then. Perhaps in another decade it won't seem that way any more.

Many cultures have NO fear of dying. Some cultures are infatuated by
the notion of prolonging life. You are probably correct in some
respects here, that in America the fear of dying might be important.
In the overall scheme of things, I doubt that most current cultures
will benefit very much from technological advances to prolong life
artificially, or through the use of genetic technology.

> However, the fear from 1979-80 of resurrection of a military draft
> is dead and buried, no matter what wars may be in the offing.

Well, you haven't been following the Shrub Regime's<tm> designs for
our future very much lately! I've already spoken on all of that, so I
won't take the time to repeat myself. It looks now, by the nature of
the US Congress, that we'll be going to war perpetually for a very
long time. YOU, sir, need to get used to that idea, and what that
will really mean as American civilization declines. And it will. You
need to consider some basic philosophical ideas:

You can't and won't be "allowed" to call the shots for everyone else.

Your visions are entirely your own, and no one else's.

The US vision, and the US government can fall just as assuredly as all
other such civilizations have come and gone. It can, and it certainly
may, notwithstanding the geographical nature of what separates east
from west, or all other such parochial definitions.

In short, your world view is very limited by your own delusions,
probably adjusted from your (and my) history of world events as they
have previously taken place. But the US has admittedly become an
empire, and economic and philosophical empire not of our own design.
You support this nonsense, and I certainly do not. We are losing our
strength and vitality in all of this senseless effort to mould a
planet of our own making. This was NEVER our goal. Our goal was
freedom, liberty and independence. It is now in the process of
re-making the rest of this planet according to our own designs.

We have NO mandate whatsoever to serve as a global policeman. We have
no mandate whatsoever to impose our morality on the rest of the
planet, that has by the way, diverse cultures and a myriad of
definitions of morality. The world, as such, exists today by rather
free choices, and such choices will never match your own choices, nor
the choices Americans choose to make for themselves.

To answer some of your concerns, I doubt that freedom and liberty will
immediately grow. The US government shows the way, and the opinion of
most of the majority of our people suggests otherwise. We are losing
our own liberty rapidly, and more rapidly in the times you mention
where this has been documented. America is NOT more free today than
we were in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. I grew up then, at the
earliest of these times, and I swear, I have far less by far freedoms
today that I even imagined I would ever have had at such an age!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: USAn hopes, fears -- now vs. late 1970s
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:20:06 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in part:

> > I've been thinking again about how things are for liberty in the
> > USA now vs. the late 1970s, only this time I focused on
> > anticipation rather than the way things are or were.
>
> So, what's THIS supposed to mean? I suspect what you define here as
> "anticipation" has much to do with what YOU anticipated.

Me and at least some other observers.

> At least in
> the early 1970s, cigarettes were sold around 35 cents a pack almost
> anywhere. Today, they are about $4-5 a pack and going up rapidly. I
> certainly didn't anticipate that, all in taxes to a government that
> does NOT represent me. If you don't, or didn't smoke in the early
> 1970s, then you probably didn't anticipate this, or at least it wasn't
> particularly meaningful to you at the time, or not now at least.

Actually by the late 1970s a number of observers thought that by now
tobacco smoking would've been illegal or at least more highly restricted
than now. Some thought cannabis would be legal and tobacoo illegal, or
at least that they'd be comparably regulated.

> > If you look at J. Neal Schulman's novel of that time, "Alongside
> > Night",

One of the things in the novel (set in what was then the near future)
was tobacco prohibition.

> > the fears & hopes expressed therein seem rather quaint now.
> > There's not much fear in the USA now of double digit inflation or
> > the prospect of rationing of important goods or services, let alone
> > mass confiscations. We've made so much progress in the TRENDS in
> > economic freedom that such fears are safely behind us.
>
> Really? I don't know what planet YOU live on. The economic viability
> in the US for inflation, let alone the equity markets, are anything
> but stable. This may all change tomorrow, and it will, particularly
> with the Shrub's<tm> shoot from the hip form of foreign policy. You
> obviously haven't followed the stock market, particularly since around
> last March.

Do you have any idea what average economic growth has been over the past
20 years, compared with most 20-year periods in world history? The
economy could really "collapse" and we'd STILL be ahead of where
economic forecasters would've guessed in the late 1970s! And that's
just the average forecaster -- what doomsayers were saying -- and many
libertarians listening to -- was far worse. There were both
inflationary and deflationary economic apocalypses predicted! And they
continued to be projected by the likes of Jim Davidson even in recent
years.

> > The major big problem is still the Social Security overhang.
>
> Dream on. That was already a foregone conclusion, actually decades
> ago. Nothing particularly new

That's what I wrote. Don't you understand the meaning of "still"? Or
do you want to pretend to disagree with me on all things?

> > So does the idea we had that explicitly
> > libertarian politics would grow rapidly and become a force to be
> > reckoned with. Both the growth of the Libertarian Party and the
> > inroads of libertarian influence in the Republican Party peaked
> > fairly early.
>
> So? Isn't this an ongoing, rather than a static problem?

I was writing about anticipation, remember?

> > The tax revolt was flying high in the late 1970s, but its momentum
> > did not continue. In the middle 1970s one's sense was that
> > narcotics prohibition was on its way out, albeit slowly. The
> > present War on Drugs didn't seem likely then. Studies of medical
> > marijuana were under way, but they wound up being used as most of
> > the basis for licensing Marinol rather than cannabis itself.
> > Cocaine was having increased acceptability, but that situation was
> > reversed a few years later.
>
> Perhaps so, but how does this figure into the economic picture you
> raised above?

It doesn't. I didn't say it did. The issues have very little to do
with each other.

> > However, the fear from 1979-80 of resurrection of a military draft
> > is dead and buried, no matter what wars may be in the offing.
>
> Well, you haven't been following the Shrub Regime's<tm> designs for
> our future very much lately! I've already spoken on all of that, so I
> won't take the time to repeat myself. It looks now, by the nature of
> the US Congress, that we'll be going to war perpetually for a very
> long time.

Even if they do, they have PLENTY of volunteers for it. The draft is
not coming back.

> You can't and won't be "allowed" to call the shots for everyone else.
>
> Your visions are entirely your own, and no one else's.

Now it's my turn to ask: What's this supposed to mean? I made
observations of what I and other people have thought, as revealed in
their writing & talking. Is there no way to try to assess what other
people think? Must we discount everything they say & write? It's not
as if by reporting what I see of others, that I'm either commanding or
anticipating their every move.

> To answer some of your concerns, I doubt that freedom and liberty will
> immediately grow. The US government shows the way, and the opinion of
> most of the majority of our people suggests otherwise.

I think in some respects just counting the USA, it will. School choice
is advancing, and its advance may speed up rapidly. I also agree with
Hans Sennholz that the Social Security problem will lead to some
privatization of the "accounts", though maybe not "immediately". We
will soon start to see the fruits of welfare reform by a dropping off of
the rolls of many recipients, countered only by some new recipients from
immigrant groups, unless policy makers get weak-kneed and repeal the
federal & state reforms.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net> wrote:

> You left out a lot of stuff here that I previously
> wrote Robert.
> Mainly, most would consider rape itself to be a
> violent act. In such
> context, there is no such thing as a "non-violent"
> rape! I don't know
> how you missed that.

I once had a roommate who considered himself a
philosopher. When we would disucss things, he would
generally end it with a response of "It depends on how
you define . . ." which would irritate me to no end,
because you can't communicate if you can't even decide
what the words mean.

However, in this case it all depends on how you define
the word "violence". One group defines it as
physically harming another person. To them you can
rape someone without physically harming them. A date
rape drug can knock someone out, and you can then have
sex with them, leaving no physical injury. The second
group apparently has a broad interpretation of the
word, where doing any kind of harm to someone is
violence, even stealing their property without their
being present. In that case the date rape or any
action against the person's will would be classified
as violence.

For whatever reason the second group is upset that the
first can call the rape non-violent. I guess this is
due to the first groups' calling everything they
consider wrong violence as sort of an oversimplified
set of ethics. In that case anything non-violent would
be acceptable, so saying rape can be non-violent would
be condoning it. I don't think anyone has actually
called rape acceptable or said they consider it right,
but the definitions have the groups crossed.

I am giving this analysis of the situation because I
hate these tedious discussions over what a word means.
I never liked them with my roommate, and I don't want
to get it into it here. I think we all have a basic
idea of what we consider right and wrong, and in most
cases we agree on those. Do we really need to have
lengthy discussions over exactly why they are wrong,
or whether it is encompassed by a given term? There is
no "pro-rape" group here, and no real debate like
there is over say, war with Iraq. Everyone involved
needs to stop with what Frank calls "mouse-milking."

Ken Butler

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 13 Oct 2002 21:50:55 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 03:08, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Michelle Eilers...
>
> Michelle Eilers wrote:
> > > Raping a woman, even if she's unconscious, strikes me
> > > as an excessive use of physical force. This is
> > > particularly true since rape isn't about "sex" in the
> > > first place - it's really about power and control.
> > > The purpose of a rape is to directly injure the person
> > > being raped; the act is directly injurious whether the
> > > person is conscious during the act or not.
>
> You replied:
> > I think that'd be true of some but not all rapes. Or is that a defining
> > (for you) characteristic of rape? That if it were about sex it wouldn't
> > count as a rape?
>
> It's about establishing whether or not consent has taken place,
> nothing more. Anything beyond that should be considered aggression,
> and thereby an initiation of force and trespass against a victim.

> In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this

Strawman.

The assertion was not that there was no initiation of force, or act of
aggression, rather whether or not it constituted violence. If as you
appear to assert all acts that you don't like (somehow tied in to
aggression in some form) are violence, then there is no point discussing
*anything* with you since it is *all* "related" and hence violent.

By your argument, any and all protests that move beyond the mind of the
protester constitute acts of violence, since force is used to accomplish
the protester, and by your alteration of the words, that the use of
force to initiate (and make no mistake a protest *is* an initiation)
something is a violent act.

Your alteration or "interpretation" is just as broad and no more or less
useful than the current general interpretation of "general welfare" or
"interstate commerce".

Using the accurate and accepted definition of words is not mouse
milking, no matter how much you try to make it so. You call it
quibbling, mouse milking, nitpicking, or playing with words when you
don't like the result; and cheer me on when I use the exact same
mechanisms and applications of logic to point out the flaws in the
arguments for "welfare" or the gun-control nazis' arguments regarding
the second amendment.

For crying out loud, it has been recently said that pointing out that
someone did not write the words one assigned to them was nitpicking.
Yet, if I were to point out that the words of Ryan Davidson, or Stan
Smith, or Daniel Adams do not reflect the libertarian viewpoint under
the same circumstances, I'd be lauded.

Hypocrisy, or at best a double standard.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Ken,

> > You left out a lot of stuff here that I previously
> > wrote Robert.
> > Mainly, most would consider rape itself to be a
> > violent act. In such
> > context, there is no such thing as a "non-violent"
> > rape! I don't know
> > how you missed that.
>
> I once had a roommate who considered himself a
> philosopher. When we would disucss things, he would
> generally end it with a response of "It depends on
> how
> you define . . ." which would irritate me to no end,
> because you can't communicate if you can't even
> decide
> what the words mean.

The thing is people *do* use words differently. If
two people aren't aware that they are using the same
word to mean different things it can cause unnecessary
conflict. For example, the whole argument over
whether a rapee is "imposing" on a rapist by defending
herself could have been avoided if those of us
involved had realized early on that some of us were
using "impose" as a synonym for "force" and others of
us thought "impose" meant "unjustified force."

> I am giving this analysis of the situation because I
> hate these tedious discussions over what a word
> means.
> I never liked them with my roommate, and I don't
> want
> to get it into it here. I think we all have a basic
> idea of what we consider right and wrong, and in
> most
> cases we agree on those. Do we really need to have
> lengthy discussions over exactly why they are wrong,
> or whether it is encompassed by a given term? There
> is
> no "pro-rape" group here, and no real debate like
> there is over say, war with Iraq. Everyone involved
> needs to stop with what Frank calls "mouse-milking."

If that's the case, I'd suggest you just delete posts
dealing with definitions. Not everyone is going to be
interested in every subject that is discussed here; I
was really quite bored with the whole thread about
whether we should attack Iraq that was going on a
short while ago. I didn't like the hostility level in
the thread, I don't know a lot about Middle Eastern
politics, and I don't have any control over whether
the US goes to war anyway, so it's not a topic I cared
to argue about. So I just deleted most of the posts
without reading them. I figure, if you don't like a
particular topic being discussed, just delete the
posts. There are many more important things to do
with your time than reading boring posts on an e-mail
list!

I myself have felt at times that this particular
thread has become tiresome or just reached the height
of silliness. Still, I *do* very much like discussing
definitions and fundamental ethical ideas. And I do
feel that this thread has helped me clarify my
thinking and better understand other people's
attitudes. (I also gained the not unuseful
information attempting to converse with Robert is
pointless.)

My guess is that there are more people who are
interested in debating whether the US should go to war
with Iraq than who are interested in arguing about
defintions. But, I don't think discussing definitions
is necessarily a bad thing, so long as some of us find
it worth our time to write on the subject and other
list members just remember where the delete key in
their inboxes is!

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 14 Oct 2002 20:43:13 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 00:47, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Ken,
...
> > I once had a roommate who considered himself a
> > philosopher. When we would disucss things, he would
> > generally end it with a response of "It depends on
> > how
> > you define . . ." which would irritate me to no end,
> > because you can't communicate if you can't even
> > decide
> > what the words mean.
>
> The thing is people *do* use words differently. If
> two people aren't aware that they are using the same
> word to mean different things it can cause unnecessary
> conflict. For example, the whole argument over
> whether a rapee is "imposing" on a rapist by defending
> herself could have been avoided if those of us
> involved had realized early on that some of us were
> using "impose" as a synonym for "force" and others of
> us thought "impose" meant "unjustified force."

Bingo. I'd add a corollary to that. it goes beyond merely recognizing,
but accepting. For example, Frank is currently going through "it means
what I mean and to hell with anyone else". I am certainly glad you have
the intelligence and wisdom to see that a word can have multiple
definitions, and that others are free, and may well use one definition
whilst you use another. IMO, as long as both definitions (or all three,
etc.) are in the dictionary as being a definition of said word (or
phrase), that all are equally valid. Again, thank you.

>
>
> > I am giving this analysis of the situation because I
> > hate these tedious discussions over what a word
> > means.
> > I never liked them with my roommate, and I don't
> > want
> > to get it into it here. I think we all have a basic
> > idea of what we consider right and wrong, and in
> > most
> > cases we agree on those. Do we really need to have
> > lengthy discussions over exactly why they are wrong,
> > or whether it is encompassed by a given term? There
> > is
> > no "pro-rape" group here, and no real debate like
> > there is over say, war with Iraq. Everyone involved
> > needs to stop with what Frank calls "mouse-milking."
>
> If that's the case, I'd suggest you just delete posts
> dealing with definitions. Not everyone is going to be
> interested in every subject that is discussed here; I
> was really quite bored with the whole thread about
> whether we should attack Iraq that was going on a
> short while ago. I didn't like the hostility level in
> the thread, I don't know a lot about Middle Eastern
> politics, and I don't have any control over whether
> the US goes to war anyway, so it's not a topic I cared
> to argue about. So I just deleted most of the posts
> without reading them. I figure, if you don't like a
> particular topic being discussed, just delete the
> posts. There are many more important things to do

Bingo again. it's a variant situation of "If you don't like the show,
change the channel.".

Excellent post, Michelle.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 14 Oct 2002 21:58:48 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 09:27, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I wrote:
> > > In some of the above cases some might argue that since no physical
> > > violence had occurred, no initiation of force took place. I see this
> > > as yet another contest in mousemilking, since there is little doubt
> > > that trespass occurs in every sexual act.
>
> And you replied:
> > The question is going to be important in some contexts. As I explained,
> > there are people who, for purposes of distinguishing criminal penalties,
> > eligibility for parole, counting of "strikes", whatever, want to
> > distinguish violent from non-violent crimes. Presumably that'd include
> > different treatment between violent and non-violent rapes.
>
> You left out a lot of stuff here that I previously wrote Robert.
> Mainly, most would consider rape itself to be a violent act. In such

I've taken an informal poll around here (of women, just to avoid that
distraction), and they disagree with you. yes, informal and
non-scientific, *I* can acknowledge that. Yet, it stands in counter
here, to the claim most, since none of the women (only about 14 so far,
two who have been involved in these things on a very personal level) say
that rape is always violent, even though it is always wrong (w/o the
"statutory" crap getting in the way).

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org> wrote:

> Bingo. I'd add a corollary to that. it goes beyond
> merely recognizing,
> but accepting. For example, Frank is currently going
> through "it means
> what I mean and to hell with anyone else". I am
> certainly glad you have
> the intelligence and wisdom to see that a word can
> have multiple
> definitions, and that others are free, and may well
> use one definition
> whilst you use another. IMO, as long as both
> definitions (or all three,
> etc.) are in the dictionary as being a definition of
> said word (or
> phrase), that all are equally valid. Again, thank
> you.

The problem is that the argument has been reduced to
one of definitions. Everyone here thinks rape is
wrong, right? (If you don't think rape is wrong, by
the way, please get the hell out.) So what is the
discussion about? If it qualifies as violence? If
defending yourself is "imposing"? Whether the rapist
can be "principled" or not? Basically we pick apart
the wording, and guys like Frank and Larry get upset
when your definitions aren't consistent with theirs.
Maybe their sense of morality gets torn to shreds if I
go by definition 3 in the dictionary, and then they
have to correct you or face a crisis of faith. I don't
know, it just seems tedious to me.

Ken Butler

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:32:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Bill Anderson...

> The problem is that the argument has been reduced to
> one of definitions.

FINALLY! Someone with a reasonable critique!

Thanks Ken. It's great to hear from someone who might be evaluating
some
of the commentary on this thread. A thread, by the way, that I
originally didn't want very much to do with. At this moment, I have
backed off of most of it, since those engaged seem more intent on
defining their own turf battles over the use of words that are usually
known
quite well otherwise in respectable english language. Guess I usually
get very tired of dealing with such, when that seems to be the only
purpose for such discussion and hostility.

> Everyone here thinks rape is
> wrong, right?

The issue here might be better classified as discussing a "definition"
itself of rape, or so it seems. I am at a loss, as I believed by
definition served rather nicely. Any violation of another's body
without their consent constitutes aggression and the wrongful use of
force. Pretty simple really, and also straight forward, or so most
would assume. NOT the case here with some however. Frankly, I'm tired
of discussing it, at least as far as I am concerned.

> (If you don't think rape is wrong, by
> the way, please get the hell out.)

Here's my problem. If you take a brief look at my definition, it is
rather obvious. However, others have even questioned my use of
"violation" (which arguably can be made that some people WISH to be
violated, and may even consent to such of their own free will. Bondage
for example. I don't really have a problem with the later, as a
percentage of people seem to enjoy being violated and even consent to
it according to their own free will. Okay, that's "their" cup of tea.
It may not be mine, although I will accept that they have a right to
their own choice. But the converse of some of this argumentation
suggests that NO VIOLENCE has taken place in the case of a individual
who lacks the capacity for making such a choice. I simply say rape
itself is a violent act. It is in many ways: physically,
psychologically and emotionally.

I do agree with you that anyone who feels that rape is OK, probably
should not be on a libertarian list debating libertarian principles.

> So what is the
> discussion about? If it qualifies as violence? If
> defending yourself is "imposing"? Whether the rapist
> can be "principled" or not? Basically we pick apart
> the wording, and guys like Frank and Larry get upset
> when your definitions aren't consistent with theirs.

No, I won't go THAT far! Everyone knows that rape leaves a lot of
scars, as just mentioned, physically (sometimes); psychologically and
emotionally (most likely always), rape is a violent act. Violence DOES
NOT have to always be physical, but it still is violence against an
individual every time a rape occurs.

> Maybe their sense of morality gets torn to shreds if I
> go by definition 3 in the dictionary, and then they
> have to correct you or face a crisis of faith. I don't
> know, it just seems tedious to me.

Maybe, just maybe, what we are dealing with here is the simple
character of violence that occurs when ANY rape has taken place.
That, I submit, is MY issue anyway. There are accepted definitions
for emotional violence, and psychological violence -- violence isn't
necessarily limited to physical injuries that may also occur in many,
or even most rape cases. Again, the act of rape itself is an act of
violence. Given the excuses given by some here, I wouldn't want to
live in such a society if they were in charge, even if they still
called themselves "libertarians".

Thanks for a really rational post!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:53:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I've taken an informal poll around here (of women, just to avoid that
> distraction), and they disagree with you.

So what? I don't care. My views, as such are directed toward women.
What's your real point?

> yes, informal and
> non-scientific, *I* can acknowledge that. Yet, it stands in counter
> here, to the claim most, since none of the women (only about 14 so far,
> two who have been involved in these things on a very personal level) say
> that rape is always violent, even though it is always wrong (w/o the
> "statutory" crap getting in the way).

Nice. But again, what's your *REAL* point? Is rape always (or most
often anyway so) a usual violation against another human being, or is
it not? No, I am not targeting rapes against women in this either.
For your information, I haven't seen 14 women on Liberty Northwest
even responding to this thread! So, where did you pick these women?
You are correct, this is obviously a non-scientific analysis. I'm
just wondering where all of these women came from? Maybe pure
invention?

Bill. Sorry. You must be under the influence of some "source". Who
knows what, and I don't care. Is rape violent, or is is it not? In
your own construction of things, is rape a "non-violent" act, or can
it be? Sometimes? I'm only excluding such things as "bondage" and
other scenarios that people wish to accept to be wilfully violated! I
can't really think of any other circumstances in which any of this
might be relevant. This is ONE thread I wished I had stayed out of!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 17 Oct 2002 16:42:13 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 07:53, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > I've taken an informal poll around here (of women, just to avoid that
> > distraction), and they disagree with you.
>
> So what? I don't care. My views, as such are directed toward women.
> What's your real point?

That so far, your assertion that everyone, or most agree with you has no
basis for foundation. And no, you probably don;t care. As long as you
can assert it,m you feel better about yourself. In either case, this is
my last post on this subject. Feel free to continue your deceptions and
delusions, on your own.

> > yes, informal and
> > non-scientific, *I* can acknowledge that. Yet, it stands in counter
> > here, to the claim most, since none of the women (only about 14 so far,
> > two who have been involved in these things on a very personal level) say
> > that rape is always violent, even though it is always wrong (w/o the
> > "statutory" crap getting in the way).
>
> Nice. But again, what's your *REAL* point? Is rape always (or most
> often anyway so) a usual violation against another human being, or is

Last time. Yes, it is, but that does not mean it is always violent.

> it not? No, I am not targeting rapes against women in this either.
> For your information, I haven't seen 14 women on Liberty Northwest
> even responding to this thread! So, where did you pick these women?

>From the real world. You know, by talking face to face with people. We
do that a lot here in the US. :) I have many more people in the real
world that I talk with than here.

> You are correct, this is obviously a non-scientific analysis. I'm
> just wondering where all of these women came from? Maybe pure
> invention?
>
> Bill. Sorry. You must be under the influence of some "source". Who

Nope. I don't smoke or drink.

> knows what, and I don't care. Is rape violent, or is is it not? In

Sometimes yes, sometimes no it depends on the particular situation. I've
said it before, and you refuse to listen. I'm not going to repeat myself
any further on this topic, especially with someone who refuses to
listen, and deceive.

Oh, and one last time, one can not be "willingly violated" look it up
for crying out loud.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

> > yes, informal and
> > non-scientific, *I* can acknowledge that. Yet, it
> stands in counter
> > here, to the claim most, since none of the women
> (only about 14 so far,
> > two who have been involved in these things on a
> very personal level) say
> > that rape is always violent, even though it is
> always wrong (w/o the
> > "statutory" crap getting in the way).
>
> Nice. But again, what's your *REAL* point? Is rape
> always (or most
> often anyway so) a usual violation against another
> human being, or is
> it not? No, I am not targeting rapes against women
> in this either.
> For your information, I haven't seen 14 women on
> Liberty Northwest
> even responding to this thread! So, where did you
> pick these women?
> You are correct, this is obviously a non-scientific
> analysis. I'm
> just wondering where all of these women came from?
> Maybe pure
> invention?

Well, I'm sure Bill spoke to real women, but I imagine
that the "experimenter's preconceptions" played a big
role in the answers he got. If he just asked fourteen
women "is rape always violent or is it just sometimes
violent?" - without making any commentary on their
answers and with little to no emotional reaction to
their answers, I might be willing to believe that the
average woman believes rape isn't always violent.

However, my assumption (and Bill can correct me if I'm
wrong) is that Bill discussed his position with the
women he spoke to and they initially or eventually
came to the point of agreeing with him. If I was to
ask 14 friends of *mine* whether they think rape is
always violent or not - feeling strongly as I do that
it *is* an inherently violent act and expressing
disgust that anyone could ever think it *wasn't*
violent - I imagine my friends would all agree with my
conclusions.

This isn't because I think my friends (or Bill's) are
spineless conformists, but because 1) I don't think
most people have ever thought about whether rape is
always "violent" - it's a rather academic question -
and so probably don't have a strong opinion on the
matter, 2) most (emotionally healthy) people like to
be in agreement with their friends when possible, and
3) most (emotionally healthy) people like to be
supportive of their friends' opinions when possible.

When I mentioned the libnw debate over whether rape
was always violent to my mother, she was horrified to
hear people were saying rape was sometimes
non-violent. And, while I'm inclined to think my
mother would under any circumstances say rape was
always violent, I have little doubt that her reaction
to my comment about the debate had some connection to
*my* obvious opinion on the debate.

> Bill. Sorry. You must be under the influence of some
> "source". Who
> knows what, and I don't care. Is rape violent, or is
> is it not? In
> your own construction of things, is rape a
> "non-violent" act, or can
> it be? Sometimes? I'm only excluding such things as
> "bondage" and
> other scenarios that people wish to accept to be
> wilfully violated! I
> can't really think of any other circumstances in
> which any of this
> might be relevant. This is ONE thread I wished I had
> stayed out of!

Some of this thread I've found useful; some of it has
seemed to be just enormously silly. But, even though
parts of this thread have been over rather silly,
technical things, I still greatly appreciate your
willingness to add a little bit to the discussion. At
the very least, I am greatly relieved to know that I
am not the *only* libertarian who sees rape as an
inherently violent act.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:19:57 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Well, I'm sure Bill spoke to real women, but I imagine
> that the "experimenter's preconceptions" played a big
> role in the answers he got.

I got the same message exactly, which is why I chose (I believe
wisely), not to continue this conversation with him. This is the same
criteria many special interest groups use when conducting polls on
various issues. Usually the questions are posed in terms consisting of
"negative" versus "positive" alternatives. Most people "affirm" the
positive on such questions, which affirms the position the originator
had in mind in the public eye.

Let's take the "abortion" debate as a good example of this. The real
issue is should human life be protected against violent aggression
(what I certainly believe is a libertarian proposition). Unfortunately
if a poll were taken, it would likely be done by either a pro-life
special interest group, or a pro-abortion special interest group. The
questions might resemble something like this:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD, a pro-abortion and abortion provider might conduct
a "random poll" of 5,000 Americans across social, ethnic, racial or
gender lines, with the question:

1. Should the government enact a law that would PROHIBIT a woman's
right to choose what medical services she should be given for her own
body, including HER RIGHT to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? (A
NEGATIVE question, usually getting a resounding "NO")

2. Should the government protect the right of all women to choose what
medical services are essential for her own body, including choosing to
terminate an unwanted or "possible" pregnancy that "possibly" might
become a threat to her own life or health? (A POSITIVE, likely to
generate a majority of YES votes).

RIGHT TO LIFE, a pro-life organization might commission a "random"
poll, on another 5,000 Americans, across the same spectrum with the
questions:

1. Should the government enact a law that would have the effect of
DENYING the most basic right to life for ANY human being, regardless
of stage of development? (A NEGATIVE question, again usually getting a
resounding "NO")

2. Do you believe human life SHOULD be afforded equal protection under
the law regardless of stage of development, or mental or physical
capacity or other social criteria? (A POSITIVE question, usually
eliciting a positive response e.g.: YES)

Point being, I don't know how Bill chose to phrase the questions he
allegedly asked these women.

> However, my assumption (and Bill can correct me if I'm
> wrong) is that Bill discussed his position with the
> women he spoke to and they initially or eventually
> came to the point of agreeing with him. If I was to
> ask 14 friends of *mine* whether they think rape is
> always violent or not - feeling strongly as I do that
> it *is* an inherently violent act and expressing
> disgust that anyone could ever think it *wasn't*
> violent - I imagine my friends would all agree with my
> conclusions.

Excellent point.

> This isn't because I think my friends (or Bill's) are
> spineless conformists, but because 1) I don't think
> most people have ever thought about whether rape is
> always "violent" - it's a rather academic question -
> and so probably don't have a strong opinion on the
> matter, 2) most (emotionally healthy) people like to
> be in agreement with their friends when possible, and
> 3) most (emotionally healthy) people like to be
> supportive of their friends' opinions when possible.

Well, one thing is clear at least. Bill stated that his efforts should
not be considered a scientific poll. I've been rather upfront, or so
I believe, in that I have stated that I believe all rapes constitute a
violent act, since a human body has been violated, and aggressed upon,
against its own will. The rape itself therefore, is the violent act.
Whether or not that person was even conscious is not the significant
point. Except for maybe murder, rape is one of the most violent acts
that I can conceive of.

> When I mentioned the libnw debate over whether rape
> was always violent to my mother, she was horrified to
> hear people were saying rape was sometimes
> non-violent.

After reading Larry's commentary a bit earlier, I think some might
conclude that some of those here who defend the notion that rape
"might" not be violent under all circumstances, might be of the
calibre that would also deny that the victim of rape had essential,
"rights" that were violated at all. Rape is one of the most heinous
violent acts of all, regardless of what other violence may or may not
have been carried out in the commission of a rape.

> Some of this thread I've found useful; some of it has
> seemed to be just enormously silly. But, even though
> parts of this thread have been over rather silly,
> technical things, I still greatly appreciate your
> willingness to add a little bit to the discussion. At
> the very least, I am greatly relieved to know that I
> am not the *only* libertarian who sees rape as an
> inherently violent act.

You know what? That one word I keep hearing, and I've used it a lot
over the years myself: "libertarian". I wonder just how "libertarian"
one can claim to be, and at the same time support the notion that rape
in ALL cases is not an aggressive and/or violent act! It is a
tremendous aggression and a violation over another human being by
aggressive force in all cases. Which is why I enjoyed reading Larry's
post earlier. There is a philosophy, although it is not particularly
a major one, that seems to embrace not libertarianism but rather
"libertine indulgence" or, simply put, a no holds bared,
self-indulgence! There is a huge difference. Libertarians do not,
and have not, subscribed to this.

If anything, we subscribe to the exact opposite: individual liberty,
and individual responsibility for our choices! A huge difference
really! I am absolutely comfortable that I am using my words
correctly. Aggression is force. And the violence inflicted by rape may
not be the ultimate aggression, but it is certainly very close to and
around the top of that list.

I have to wonder, as a consequence to these discussions, just how
"libertarian" really some of these folks may be at all! I also have to
wonder if some here are guided by other philosophical agendas, such a
nihilism as Larry pointed out earlier, or self-indulgence as in the
case of libertine versus libertarian motives. Anyone who would
outwardly support a "rapist's rights" even when a rape is taking place
(and still claim to be a libertarian), is well beyond comprehension!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:43:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Oh, and one last time, one can not be "willingly violated" look it up
> for crying out loud.

I don't have to look it up. You should, on principle alone, know the
difference. {another word "look up" dictionary reason to call "rape" a
"rape"). No, I don't care to play such games anymore. You play 'em!

Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:58:24 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill Anderson

> Oh, and one last time, one can not be "willingly violated" look it up
> for crying out loud.

I would tend to take issue with that in general.

If I was told I was going to be injected with chemical A
and was instead injected with poisonous chemical B,
then I might consent.

Hence, I would be both willing and yet violated.

Regards
Tim

A View from the Gallery
Garibaldi: No, I didn't ask him if they could scan us.
I also didn't ask him if they could wax the hull or
deliver pizza

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:21:37 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Let's take the "abortion" debate as a good example of this. The
> real issue is should human life be protected against violent
> aggression (what I certainly believe is a libertarian proposition)

Real? How is that the real issue?

Different people have different ideas on when life starts.

Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred.
Should every seed be protected against violent aggression?

I have noticed that you have gone back to calling
things word games. Is this deliberate mud-slinging
by you? Do you call things "games" when you run out of
reasonable things to say?

It begins to look like it unless I have misunderstood.

Mud-slinging is one thing that politics can well do
without.

Words actually have definitions. To make sure you
have the right definition seems like common sense to me.

You seem to want to impune the motives of Bill
Anderson just because he cares about details.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Have you not heard the expression "the devil
is in the detail"?

Recently we had an example of disreputable behaviour
from Labour politicians here in the UK.

The leader of the Conservatives made an attack
on the government and the government then tried
to twist it into an attack on the people (!).

Regards
Tim

UseNet Rules (from Net.Legends.FAQ)
Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort
to ad hominems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 18 Oct 2002 10:53:48 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 23:19, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> > > yes, informal and
> > > non-scientific, *I* can acknowledge that. Yet, it
> > stands in counter
> > > here, to the claim most, since none of the women
> > (only about 14 so far,
> > > two who have been involved in these things on a
> > very personal level) say
> > > that rape is always violent, even though it is
> > always wrong (w/o the
> > > "statutory" crap getting in the way).
> >
> > Nice. But again, what's your *REAL* point? Is rape
> > always (or most
> > often anyway so) a usual violation against another
> > human being, or is
> > it not? No, I am not targeting rapes against women
> > in this either.
> > For your information, I haven't seen 14 women on
> > Liberty Northwest
> > even responding to this thread! So, where did you
> > pick these women?
> > You are correct, this is obviously a non-scientific
> > analysis. I'm
> > just wondering where all of these women came from?
> > Maybe pure
> > invention?
>
> Well, I'm sure Bill spoke to real women, but I imagine
> that the "experimenter's preconceptions" played a big
> role in the answers he got. If he just asked fourteen
> women "is rape always violent or is it just sometimes
> violent?" - without making any commentary on their
> answers and with little to no emotional reaction to
> their answers, I might be willing to believe that the
> average woman believes rape isn't always violent.

Of the fourteen at the time (I've added two since the last post), 10 of
them asked the following initial question: "How are you defining
violence?". I handed them the dictionary I had, or we used theirs or
online, just to ensure it wasn't "my" definition.

I also asked other questions, questions regarding the rape laws in the
state of Idaho. It was part of a larger survey with a different set of
understanding. The survey is about the adequacy and accuracy of the rape
laws in this state. Something Frank is not really interested in given
his refusal to even think that a woman is capable of raping a man, and
probably cares little about a man raping a man. The question referred to
came a couple from the end, after the listing of state law. The survey
was designed well prior to this list's discussion about rape, as you may
surmise based on my previous posting regarding the further ramifications
and the piss-poor state of laws regarding it in this state.

Due to some of the other questions in it being of a private nature, the
survey is made to me anonymous for the respondent. Anonymous surveys in
"tense" areas such as this have a nice advantage in that they have good
chance of being answered honestly. There are a number of topics that
people will answer anonymously with a position or opinion they think is
not well received, and answer the opposite when someone will know what
they said.

At any rate, the survey won't be completed until January 15th, so the
full results won't be posted anywhere until then. Next month men are
being surveyed.

later, it's back to the real world.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:34:13 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

> Different people have different ideas on when life starts.
>
> Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred.
> Should every seed be protected against violent aggression?

If you mean that a sperm and a seed are biologicially analogous, you are
mistaken.

A seed is an embryo, a new individual member of its species; it is
multicellular. A sperm isn't multicellular. It's not a new indivdual
member of its species; it's simply a germ cell, a body part of an older
member that it came from. A human embryo begins with one cell and shortly
after, it becomes multicellular.

For the correct facts of human embryology, read "When Do Human Beings
Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving. The
article is available on my website.

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> Of the fourteen at the time (I've added two since
> the last post), 10 of
> them asked the following initial question: "How are
> you defining
> violence?". I handed them the dictionary I had, or
> we used theirs or
> online, just to ensure it wasn't "my" definition.
>
> I also asked other questions, questions regarding
> the rape laws in the
> state of Idaho. It was part of a larger survey with
> a different set of
> understanding. The survey is about the adequacy and
> accuracy of the rape
> laws in this state. Something Frank is not really
> interested in given
> his refusal to even think that a woman is capable of
> raping a man, and
> probably cares little about a man raping a man. The
> question referred to
> came a couple from the end, after the listing of
> state law. The survey
> was designed well prior to this list's discussion
> about rape, as you may
> surmise based on my previous posting regarding the
> further ramifications
> and the piss-poor state of laws regarding it in this
> state.
>
> Due to some of the other questions in it being of a
> private nature, the
> survey is made to me anonymous for the respondent.
> Anonymous surveys in
> "tense" areas such as this have a nice advantage in
> that they have good
> chance of being answered honestly. There are a
> number of topics that
> people will answer anonymously with a position or
> opinion they think is
> not well received, and answer the opposite when
> someone will know what
> they said.
>
> At any rate, the survey won't be completed until
> January 15th, so the
> full results won't be posted anywhere until then.
> Next month men are
> being surveyed.
>
> later, it's back to the real world.
>

Wow! This survey sounds really great. What are
reasons/plans for creating it? Are you hoping to use
it in some way to help correct Idaho's rape laws?

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

> You know what? That one word I keep hearing, and
> I've used it a lot
> over the years myself: "libertarian". I wonder just
> how "libertarian"
> one can claim to be, and at the same time support
> the notion that rape
> in ALL cases is not an aggressive and/or violent
> act!

Well, I don't think Bill is saying that rape is not
always aggressive (an initiation of force); he's just
saying it's not always violent (an "excessive" or
"great" use of force).

I just have trouble conceiving of virtually any rape
as being "nonviolent." For instance, I was thinking
last night about Robert's statement that it was
important to be able to distinguish nonviolent from
violent rapes for legal reasons (presumably because
nonviolent rapists shouldn't be punished as harshly as
violent rapists).

I do think someone who steals a car from a parking lot
or in front of a house, when no owner is present, has
committed a less serious crime than a person who
shoots or beats up a car driver in order to steal a
car has. On the other hand, if a guy drugs a woman
with Rohypnol so he doesn't have to use as much force
to rape her, I don't see that as being any less
serious of a rape than a rape where the woman was
conscious. And I certainly don't think a person
should "get off easier" just because he or she is
raping someone who is unconscious as Robert's comment
suggested.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: 18 Oct 2002 14:15:30 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:43, Michelle wrote:

>
> Wow! This survey sounds really great. What are
> reasons/plans for creating it? Are you hoping to use
> it in some way to help correct Idaho's rape laws?

Yup! :^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 21:00:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Let's take the "abortion" debate as a good example of this. The
> > real issue is should human life be protected against violent
> > aggression (what I certainly believe is a libertarian proposition)

You replied:
> Real? How is that the real issue?
> Different people have different ideas on when life starts.

Admittedly, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors definitions, but
scientifically, and biologically, there is a body of scientific
evidence that can easily demonstrate that human life begins at
conception. Such life is always human. It is not a cow, horse, sheep
or a goat. That definition has been reinforced countless times with
new scientific breakthroughs in genetics and technological
advancement. It would take a complete fool to challenge such body of
scientific evidence. The converse to this is also scientifically
true, e.g.: there is NO scientific evidence at all that shows that the
origin of human life begins anywhere else!

In my judgement anyway, the Libertarian "oath" is relevant in this
issue just because we acknowledge that the initiation of force against
another [human being] for the purpose of achieving social or political
goals is a requirement for membership in the Libertarian Party.

> I have noticed that you have gone back to calling
> things word games. Is this deliberate mud-slinging
> by you? Do you call things "games" when you run out of
> reasonable things to say?

I don't think I've ever been accused of "running out of words to
say"! Probably the converse is most often true. However, I do
consider that
word games are being employed when such are being used to obfuscate an
issue, any issue. In this context, I would use your argument to
suggest some of my opponents on various issues employ word games when
they have lost an argument and can find no other way to argue anymore
without employing such distractions. I am not accusing anyone of
using "word games" in an attempt at "mud slinging", only be stating
factually that they are no longer addressing relevant philosophical
arguments against their own position, and thereby resort to word games
in a feudal effort to win a "non-argument".

First, Libertarian idealism is a philosophy. It assumes and believes
various things, and at its core rests with the notion of supporting
individual liberty on all issues and at all times. In such support for
this goal, we also reject the initiation of aggression (force) to
achieve such ends, and call it immoral.

Let me move briefly into a hypothetical case. I make a strong or
compelling case on any particular issue supporting a case in point as
a just libertarian position in its own right. If an opponent knows
that my argument is strong, (and they don't want to lose the debate)
and that he or she has no defence against it, then they might be
tempted to employ word games, or a play on words to offset my case
e.g.: I may have misspelled a word, or the sentence structure was
lacking in some sense, then, that can be challenged. Usually I write
very
quickly and given the volume of traffic that I post, I admittedly
often make mistakes. Some of these word games are very clearly used to
obfuscate the issue rather than an attempt to deal with its substance.
If you still feel I am wrong, then I'll accept your feelings, but
please understand mine as well.

> It begins to look like it unless I have misunderstood.

Well, often it ticks me off when I make a strong case, and have spent
considerable time working on it, when someone replies with a
"one-liner" grammatical error, misspelled word, or a play on words to
defuse the case "that I really made!", which is otherwise very clear
if anyone can speak english at all!

> Mud-slinging is one thing that politics can well do
> without.

Okay, I can agree with that. Might you consider then that word games,
or plays on words might be one form of mud slinging to defuse an
argument postulated by a political opponent -- maybe in an effort to
show his/her ignorance? Think about it.

> Words actually have definitions. To make sure you
> have the right definition seems like common sense to me.

It can be. But often even that is not necessarily required in a
perfect way to otherwise explain a case, or present a position that is
philosophically in tact.

Let me just use THIS for an example, another hypothetical case albeit
I believe at least relevant:

I write: "I beleeve abortion is wrong." Or, "I believe abortion are
wrong."

If you understand and can comprehend the english language at all, you
know exactly what I just said. But, if you want to play on words, or
bring in word games to defeat your opponent, you will first resort to
saying something like this:

"I don't understand your use of the word "beleeve". "I've looked it
up, and no dictionary can help me out!" "Can you please elaborate on
how this fits, or what relevance you might consider this to be?" Or,
the second case, "Do you believe that abortions (plural) "are" wrong",
or "abortion (singular) "is" wrong -- I'm confused?"

In the first case I was likely typing rapidly and likely made a
typographical error, a misspelling of the word "believe", and in the
second case, likely meant to type "abortions" (plural), but the "s"
just didn't make it for some reason. But in either case, has the
meaning of what I wrote been lost on anyone?

My point I guess is, you can play all sorts of such games endlessly,
forever, and never really address the philosophical statement that is
really quite clear and forthright. This is particularly useful when
you find yourself LOSING the argument!

> You seem to want to impune the motives of Bill
> Anderson just because he cares about details.

His details often obfuscate what the "details" of the argument is
often really all about in the first place. Sorry.

> Am I misunderstanding you?

I hope not. I honestly try and answer challenges in usually a
forthright manner. I get pissed only when I am not given the same
common courtesy by others. Look Tim, if I were writing a book, or a
Doctorate thesis, I would spend an inordinate amount of my time proof
reading every word, every punctuation mark, every sentence. On Liberty
Northwest however, I know of NO ONE doing such things, simply because
we here usually just converse with each other informally on various
issues.

I have a great deal of personal respect for Dr. Chris Tame for
example. But his recent reply to Robert Goodman MIGHT be challenged on
simply his usage or perhaps grammatical errors in this case, in the
way he replied! Think about that one, since Dr. Tame is from your
neck of the woods! As Chairman of the European based "Libertarian
Alliance", for me he stands out head and shoulders as a tremendous
leader in his own right.

> Have you not heard the expression "the devil
> is in the detail"?

Yea, I've heard it, and in this case at least, I believe it doesn't
fit at all. I've been more "detailed" than most around here in a lot
of what
I write. It's the ridiculous "one-liner" responses I get on complex
issues that piss me off the most! Usually such responses direct
attention to non-specific uses of words, and even, believe it or not
when words are otherwise quite clear as to meaning or purpose. When it
gets so ridiculous that it becomes outright absurd, I usually don't
even respond, hoping others might see how obviously shallow or totally
irrelevant and absurd such an argument the opponent might use, really
is!

> Recently we had an example of disreputable behaviour
> from Labour politicians here in the UK.

That's politics. And, that's expected. At least it ought to be.
Politicians are whores for the most part. They'd sell their mother's
soul to the devil to get elected, re-elected, and to gain power.
Politicians are available to the highest bidder by special interest
groups, and large corporate or financial interests who pay the way in
public opinion. That IS NOT what we are doing on Liberty Northwest,
is it? Think about it. Who is funding what we talk about, and choose
to freely discuss? No one. It is all about political, social and
economic philosophy, and discussing all issues relating to such
topics.

> The leader of the Conservatives made an attack
> on the government and the government then tried
> to twist it into an attack on the people (!).

I'm not surprised at all. Why are you? It happens all the time in
America too. Everyday. It happens normally in every democracy, or
plural society on the entire planet. It is only dangerous to do such
things in a totalitarian police state, in which I believe the western
world may be slowly embracing. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Don't read me too adverse to your own government, since I find it very
similar in a lot of ways to the present US government. Tony Blair is a
political whore, and his power is guaranteed insofar as the economic
and establishment grants him the blessing to represent their
interests. The exact same thing can be said of our US President and
the regime he has assembled to maintain their globalist hegemony.

But this is another topic. Another thread. I am only here trying to
suggest that I almost always try to be factual from a philosophical
point of view. I really do believe that individual liberty, and
personal responsibility, ought to be the central core of any viable
civilization. And, every such civilization has competing interests,
and power bases, who wish to control whatever "government" represents
the power to further entrench such interests. Often such interests
also have the power to impress and persuade public opinion.

Please Tim, don't get me wrong. I did NOT take your post as
particularly aggressive in tone. You asked questions, and I attempted
to give you some honest replies and answers to those questions. I
don't consider myself a master at playing word games, in fact the
opposite: I consider most of such a direct obfuscation to the various
issues at
hand, at least in most cases.

One of the major things I have learned over the years = take personal
"ownership" over what you say, what you believe, and over how you live
your life accordingly. Most people still respect that, even though
they may disagree with you. I guess this goes directly back to what
you had to say about honesty.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 09:19:52 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> I was thinking
> last night about Robert's statement that it was
> important to be able to distinguish nonviolent from
> violent rapes for legal reasons (presumably because
> nonviolent rapists shouldn't be punished as harshly as
> violent rapists).

I didn't quite say THAT. All I did was point out that the difference
between violent & non-violent crimes in general is now an important
issue of penal policy & controversy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > I was thinking
> > last night about Robert's statement that it was
> > important to be able to distinguish nonviolent
> from
> > violent rapes for legal reasons (presumably
> because
> > nonviolent rapists shouldn't be punished as
> harshly as
> > violent rapists).
>
> I didn't quite say THAT. All I did was point out
> that the difference
> between violent & non-violent crimes in general is
> now an important
> issue of penal policy & controversy.

And why is the difference between violent and
non-violent crimes important? The only reason I can
think of is because non-violent crimes are probably
not as "serious" and so are not going to be punished
as harshly as violent crimes.

If there is some other reason you had in mind for why
it would useful to distinguish between violent and
nonviolent crimes please do specify.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:42:16 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in small part:

> Admittedly, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors definitions, but
> scientifically, and biologically, there is a body of scientific
> evidence that can easily demonstrate that human life begins at
> conception.

No, scientific evidence can NEVER demonstrate such a thing, because
"life" is a matter of definition. Scientific evidence can say all sorts
of things about zygotes, but it can't say anything about when a human
life begins, because that line can be drawn anywhere you like. It's
like the way science can analyze electromagnetic radiation and nerve
impulses, but has no bearing on whether a particular color is "blue" or
"green".

> I do consider that
> word games are being employed when such are being used to obfuscate an
> issue, any issue.

Like the way you're playing one here.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 19:18:17 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> asked:

> And why is the difference between violent and
> non-violent crimes important? The only reason I can
> think of is because non-violent crimes are probably
> not as "serious" and so are not going to be punished
> as harshly as violent crimes.

Probably so. For instance, one of the drug reform measures on a state's
ballot next month is one mandating treatment instead of prison in drug
cases wherein the crime was not also or simultaneous with a "violent
act".

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:00:44 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Admittedly, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors definitions, but
> > scientifically, and biologically, there is a body of scientific
> > evidence that can easily demonstrate that human life begins at
> > conception.

And, you muttered:
> No, scientific evidence can NEVER demonstrate such a thing, because
> "life" is a matter of definition. Scientific evidence can say all sorts
> of things about zygotes, but it can't say anything about when a human
> life begins, because that line can be drawn anywhere you like. It's
> like the way science can analyze electromagnetic radiation and nerve
> impulses, but has no bearing on whether a particular color is "blue" or
> "green".

You must be a pretty intelligent guy, Robert. You should start writing
biology textbooks for high school biology students! Any literate
16-18 year old high school biology student can understand where human
life begins! Ask 'em!

Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history also
demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has emerged as
a result of human copulation, that the results of such has always
turned out to be "human", surprised? Maybe you are, I have no way of
knowing. Has any births from human mothers ever produced horses or
cows, sheep or asses? Well, maybe some asses, I've known a few of
those. You've managed to compounded your ignorance here in what is
well know as solid science by employing yet more word games and
mousemilking exercises. Which is why I no longer answer many of your
posts anymore. This one was so fucking absurd I couldn't help myself
by slam you for ludicrous irrelevancy to the points at hand.

In which I previously wrote:
> > I do consider that
> > word games are being employed when such are being used to obfuscate an
> > issue, any issue.

> Like the way you're playing one here.

Well, anyone who disputes accurate scientific evidence that any 16
year old biology student would understand, and claims to have grounds
for argument to the contrary: (1) ought to be writing scholarly thesis
or research study, or at least high school biology books disputing
such facts, or (2), must be a total idiot just looking for an argument
to engage in regardless of merit using whatever devises might be
available in the english vocabulary.

You choose where you fit here. I am at a complete loss.

Warmest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:05:15 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Michelle Eilers...

Michelle Eilers wrote:
> > And why is the difference between violent and
> > non-violent crimes important? The only reason I can
> > think of is because non-violent crimes are probably
> > not as "serious" and so are not going to be punished
> > as harshly as violent crimes.

And you replied, off the subject:
> Probably so. For instance, one of the drug reform measures on a state's
> ballot next month is one mandating treatment instead of prison in drug
> cases wherein the crime was not also or simultaneous with a "violent
> act".

The subject we were discussing was "rape", not individuals choosing to
take drugs or other substances. Rape always is a violent act, choosing
to use marijuana or other drugs is a personal choice, in which the
consequences as such are confined to the subject which freely chooses
such involvement. In terms of the former I see almost ultimate
aggression in violating another human being. In the later I fail to
see any evidence at all that any aggression has taken place against
another.

So, how are the two examples, one that you raised yourself, equal in
any way?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:36:13 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote:

> You must be a pretty intelligent guy, Robert. You should start writing
> biology textbooks for high school biology students!

I teach biology in college.

> Any literate
> 16-18 year old high school biology student can understand where human
> life begins! Ask 'em!

So HS students are the authority? Go ask biologists the same question,
and they'll say they don't know -- that the question is beyond the scope
of science. You'll get no answer as to how to definitively distinguish
living from non-living things, nor to distinguish human from non-human.

> Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history also
> demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has emerged as
> a result of human copulation, that the results of such has always
> turned out to be "human", surprised?

However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some time
there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a human!
That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach a
course in Evolution among others.)

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:55:07 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote:

> The subject we were discussing was "rape", not individuals choosing to
> take drugs or other substances.

Actually we were discussing USA intervention in Iraq, and it got around
to rape. One thing leads to another in these discussions. I thought
you were used to that.

> Rape always is a violent act, choosing
> to use marijuana or other drugs is a personal choice, in which the
> consequences as such are confined to the subject which freely chooses
> such involvement. In terms of the former I see almost ultimate
> aggression in violating another human being. In the later I fail to
> see any evidence at all that any aggression has taken place against
> another.
>
> So, how are the two examples, one that you raised yourself, equal in
> any way?

Maybe you were distracted when you read my statement:

"...one of the drug reform measures on a state's
ballot next month is one mandating treatment instead of prison in drug
cases wherein the crime was not also or simultaneous with a "violent
act."

What has that to do with "examples...equal in any way"?

If you're having trouble following this, let me clarify. The question
was raised as to the importance of the meaning of "violent" in legal
determinations. I supplied an example to show why that determination
matters.

Suppose this measure passes. Then someone in that state who is
convicted of a drug offense in the course of committing a rape (assuming
the rape itself does not result in a conviction) can be imprisoned for
it only if the rape is a "violent act", otherwise will have mandated
drug treatment. So suppose someone in illegal possession of a
controlled substance uses it to surreptitiously dope someone else and
then proceeds to coit that person while that person is in a diminished
capacity to give consent. If rape is inherently a violent act (which I
dispute; I certainly don't think this case is one of violence), then for
purposes of criminal corrections the convict may be imprisoned; if not,
then the convict may receive only treatment, which will probably be done
on an outpatient basis -- provided the person in question is not also
convicted of rape. In such a case the unauthorized possession of the
controlled substance is much easier to prove than rape, so this has a
high likelihood to come up as an actual case.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:09:17 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Robert Goodman (responding to parts of a Frank Reichert post) wrote in part:
> > Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history also
> > demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has emerged as
> > a result of human copulation, that the results of such has always
> > turned out to be "human", surprised?
>
>However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some time
>there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a human!
>That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach a
>course in Evolution among others.)

Given the context, it's almost unfair to point out that laws (and to a
lesser extent morals and ethics) *are* exercises in line-drawing.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:41:28 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Robert Goodman...

I previously wrote:
> > You must be a pretty intelligent guy, Robert. You should start writing
> > biology textbooks for high school biology students!

You replied:
> I teach biology in college.

That's not what I said. I suggested since you seem to authoritatively
claim that it is unclear when or where human life originates, you
should be writing a scholarly research project that would radically
change the findings of previously biological science, and thereby the
textbooks used in HS biology classes.

Do you also teach sex education? Since you seem to wonder where the
origin of human life begins, perhaps you might consider enrolling in a
class in sex education yourself.

> So HS students are the authority?

No, they are not. The material that is given them to arrive at such
conclusions, such as textbooks and other resources might be considered
at least derivative of some scientific authority and accuracy. What
about the science of DNA Robert. Would you refute that ONLY human DNA
is present in all observable cases resulting in pregnancy after
conception?

> Go ask biologists the same question,
> and they'll say they don't know -- that the question is beyond the scope
> of science.

I would suspect this is anything but true, since it largely depends
upon the question you would ask. Questions, as I brought up in a
previous post often are largely worded in such a way to provide a
frame of reference for the response to the question. With you strong
bias on the side of "not knowing" when human life begins, it might be
that your question would be couched in philosophical or other social
science terms, rather than biological. My definition has always
centred in the biological (life science) and after all this time you
should know that.

If you pose your questions in term of when a "human being" begins,
then that starts in my opinion to drift into the area of social
science, if not metaphysics.

> You'll get no answer as to how to definitively distinguish
> living from non-living things, nor to distinguish human from non-human.

Bull. DNA deceives you, and the fact than an individual human life is
present and rapidly developing at the earliest stages of pregnancy
after conception.

> > Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history also
> > demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has emerged as
> > a result of human copulation, that the results of such has always
> > turned out to be "human", surprised?

> However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some time
> there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a human!
> That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach a
> course in Evolution among others.)

That is theoretical and not hard science. I'm talking about every
observable case in history that the science of biology has observed
and concluded that human life begins at the time of conception. There
could be circumstantial evidence that might suggest this is so, but
science has never been able to show that a non-human species has
entered into intercourse and produced anything, e.g.: a cross link
between human and non-human life.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:53:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote Robert Goodman...

Frank Reichert post, wrote in part:
> > > Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history also
> > > demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has emerged as
> > > a result of human copulation, that the results of such has always
> > > turned out to be "human", surprised?

Robert Goodman replied:
> >However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some time
> >there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a human!
> >That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach a
> >course in Evolution among others.)

You replied to Robert Goodman:
> Given the context, it's almost unfair to point out that laws (and to a
> lesser extent morals and ethics) *are* exercises in line-drawing.

I wasn't trying to draw any lines at all, pointing out only that the
biological origin of human life has already been known with dead
certainty for centuries, and is backed up scientifically, as to really
make any argument to the contrary only a potential theoretical
exercise. Robert was ruminating over the "possibility" that at same
distant point, a non-human and human were able to produce offspring.
Well, maybe that "might" be so, but it is entirely theoretical and
certainly nothing that science has been able to observe.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:13:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Doris!

Doris Gordon wrote to Robert Goodman...

Robert Goodman wrote:
> > Different people have different ideas on when life starts.
> > Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred.
> > Should every seed be protected against violent aggression?

You replied:
> If you mean that a sperm and a seed are biologicially analogous, you are
> mistaken.
> A seed is an embryo, a new individual member of its species; it is
> multicellular. A sperm isn't multicellular. It's not a new indivdual
> member of its species; it's simply a germ cell, a body part of an older
> member that it came from. A human embryo begins with one cell and shortly
> after, it becomes multicellular.

Robert again as reduced what I wrote on the basis of provable biology
and brings the issue into a theoretical rather than evidentiary realm.
Again, he attempts to do this by introducing a subjective idea into
what I was referring to as an objective empirical and provable
reality. "Different people have different ideas..." Robert writes.
This doesn't say anything at all about what we know from life sciences
on ANY species! "People's ideas" are NOT objective science, but
merely a theoretical exercise as if to detract from the scientific
basis upon when human life begins. Different people still have
different ideas about whether the earth is flat, or a sphere! Science
however has proven that the flat earth theory is about as useless as a
one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

> For the correct facts of human embryology, read "When Do Human Beings
> Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving.
The
> article is available on my website.

Thanks for making this material available. I'm wondering what Robert
teaches his students in his college biology classes.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:44:29 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:

> Doris Gordon wrote to Robert Goodman...
>
> Robert Goodman wrote:
> > > Different people have different ideas on when life starts.
> > > Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred.
> > > Should every seed be protected against violent aggression?

My writing is not reproduced above. It was someone else's.

> > For the correct facts of human embryology, read "When Do Human
Beings
> > Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts," by Dianne N.
Irving. The
> > article is available on my website.
>
> Thanks for making this material available. I'm wondering what Robert
> teaches his students in his college biology classes.

We use real biology books, not tracts such as above. Ours says, "It is
important to remember, however, that life is not a series of
stop-and-start events or individual and isolated periods of time.
Instead, it is a biological process that is characterized by continuous
modification and change."

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:03:16 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote:

> Greetings again Lowell!
>
> "Lowell C. Savage" wrote Robert Goodman...
>
> Frank Reichert post, wrote in part:
> > > > Aside from biology, it's very interesting to me that history
also
> > > > demonstrates every observable time that everytime life has
emerged as
> > > > a result of human copulation, that the results of such has
always
> > > > turned out to be "human", surprised?
>
> Robert Goodman replied:

> > >However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some
time
> > >there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a
human!
> > >That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach
a
> > >course in Evolution among others.)
>
> You replied to Robert Goodman:
> > Given the context, it's almost unfair to point out that laws (and to
a
> > lesser extent morals and ethics) *are* exercises in line-drawing.
>
> I wasn't trying to draw any lines at all, pointing out only that the
> biological origin of human life has already been known with dead
> certainty for centuries, and is backed up scientifically, as to really
> make any argument to the contrary only a potential theoretical
> exercise. Robert was ruminating over the "possibility" that at same
> distant point, a non-human and human were able to produce offspring.

You're really NOT reading this stuff, are you? Look above again. What
it says is that at some time, non-humans produced human offspring, not
that a human and a non-human produced offspring.

> Well, maybe that "might" be so, but it is entirely theoretical and
> certainly nothing that science has been able to observe.

However, it must be true if human beings are a product of evolution.
Unless people came from somewhere/something else, the conclusion is
inescapable. However, the way I wrote it above seems absurd, because
I'm drawing a line where in reality only a grey area exists. There was
a gradual change of beings from ones you could definitely say were
non-human, to ones you could definitely say were human, passing thru
stages where you couldn't say they were clearly human or not. But if
you insist that science be always able to draw a clear line about such
things, then you must have it that some humans had parents who were
non-human.

How does one decide whether a fossil skeleton is of a human or a
non-human? Characteristics are measured and scored on a scale of
human-ness. Somebody puts forward that it is useful to classify those
scoring a certain score to be human. Nobody pretends this is anything
other than an arbitrary distinction which may be more or less useful
than other places to draw the line.

Similarly with drawing the line on when an individual human life begins.
The question then becomes, for what reason(s) do you want to draw the
line? Those reasons will determine where you draw the line.
Scientifically it may be convenient to say that zygote formation begins
an individual life, but that definition will be accepted for other
purposes only if convenient. If one takes various positions in
arguments over abortion ethics, one will pick any of various defining
points as to when an individual life begins. It's not as if the science
dictates the conclusion of the definitionl; rather, the definition is
chosen, and then it is said to be scientific. And there is scientific
justiication -- i.e. the ability to make measurements -- for many points
in time to draw the line at.

Ethics are value judgements. You are approaching an ethical issue. You
can't get there from factual conclusions alone. Nothing about the facts
of life dictate ethical answers.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:47:55 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:

> > > You must be a pretty intelligent guy, Robert. You should start
writing
> > > biology textbooks for high school biology students!
>
> You replied:
> > I teach biology in college.
>
> That's not what I said. I suggested since you seem to authoritatively
> claim that it is unclear when or where human life originates, you
> should be writing a scholarly research project that would radically
> change the findings of previously biological science, and thereby the
> textbooks used in HS biology classes.

There are no FINDINGS involved. Do you not understand that science did
not FIND that "human life originates" at any where or when, any more
than science FOUND the spelling of "zygote" or "neonate" or "hominid"?

> What
> about the science of DNA Robert. Would you refute that ONLY human DNA
> is present in all observable cases resulting in pregnancy after
> conception?

I wish you knew how silly your question appears to scientists. I've a
Ph.D. in biochemistry. I've taken DNA apart and put it back together,
using pieces from this and that. And you know what? It's still DNA,
regardless of where it came from. Most of it, you can't tell what
species it came from.

Do certain coding sequences from human beings differ from those of
salmon? Sure, while most of it is the same. Meanwhile, certain coding
sequences of humans differ from certain ones of yeast, but not
necessarily the same ones that differed from the salmon. Look at any
given set of homologous coding regions, and the human version will be
the same as those of some different species, and different from those of
other species. Meanwhile there are also differences within species.
Determining which DNA sequences are human is a matter of statistical
analysis.

> > Go ask biologists the same question,
> > and they'll say they don't know -- that the question is beyond the
scope
> > of science.
>
> I would suspect this is anything but true, since it largely depends
> upon the question you would ask. Questions, as I brought up in a
> previous post often are largely worded in such a way to provide a
> frame of reference for the response to the question. With you strong
> bias on the side of "not knowing" when human life begins, it might be
> that your question would be couched in philosophical or other social
> science terms, rather than biological. My definition has always
> centred in the biological (life science) and after all this time you
> should know that.

Then why don't you go ask some other scientists who have no sociologic
ax to grind?

> > However, if the theory of evolution be taken literally, at some time
> > there was a non-human coupling the result of which was birth of a
human!
> > That's what you get by these line-drawing exercises. (BTW, I teach
a
> > course in Evolution among others.)
>
> That is theoretical and not hard science. I'm talking about every
> observable case in history that the science of biology has observed
> and concluded that human life begins at the time of conception. There
> could be circumstantial evidence that might suggest this is so, but
> science has never been able to show that a non-human species has
> entered into intercourse and produced anything, e.g.: a cross link
> between human and non-human life.

Then tell me how human beings could possibly have come about. If at
time 1 there were living things but none of them human, and at later
time 2 there were human beings, then unless at some point between 1 & 2
life came from non-life, human beings must have come from non-human
beings.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:06:12 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I had written:

Robert Goodman wrote: Different people have different ideas on when life
starts.
Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred. Should every seed be protected
against violent aggression?

Robert responded: My writing is not reproduced above. It was someone
else's.

At times it's difficult to determine who's the author, but thanks for the
correction.

Doris: For the correct facts of human embryology, read "When Do Human
Beings
Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving. The
article is available on my website.

Frank: Thanks for making this material available. I'm wondering what
Robert teaches his students in his college biology classes.

Robert: We use real biology books, not tracts such as above.

Doris: Have you read her "tract?" My guess is that you are belittling it
sight unseen.

Among her credentials, Dr. Irving was a bench researcher as a biochemist at
NIH. Her article has many references, including lengthy quotes, from human
embryology textbooks that were written by the acknowledged (among human
embryologists) leaders in that field of study. As she emphasizes in her
article, the scientific facts in her article is the result of their
research.

Is your biology textbook written by a *human* embryologist?

Robert: Ours says, "It is important to remember, however, that life is not
a series of stop-and-start events or individual and isolated periods of
time. Instead, it is a biological process that is characterized by
continuous modification and change."

Doris: How was the author using "life" here? 1) Was he talking of the life
of an individual entity? 2) Or did he mean "life" in a general sense, such
as old life generates new life and that this process has been ongoing from
ancestor to descendent for eons?

If Life 1, when does he think that a new being's own life begins? Frank was
talking of Life 1.

If Life 2, this is irrelevant to what marks the onset of a new being's own
life.

As I read you Robert, you switched contexts. You changed the topic from
Life 1 to Life 2. Evolution is about Life 2, not Life 1, a distinction that
even Ph.D.'s in biochemistry should know.

In talking of Life 1, Frank was talking science, not metaphysics, i.e.,
about the onset of the person with rights. It would help if you would make
it clear whether you mean Life 1, science, or whether you mean when
personhood begins for the Life 1 of a new human organism.

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:17:47 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Doris
> Among her credentials, Dr. Irving was a bench researcher as a
> biochemist at NIH. Her article has many references, including
> lengthy quotes, from human embryology textbooks that were written by
> the acknowledged (among human embryologists) leaders in that field
> of study. As she emphasizes in her article, the scientific facts in
> her article is the result of their research.

The NIH has spent money on quack medical research.

Piggy-backing is a well-known artefact of junk science.

Advocates of creationism cite doubts by evolutionists.
Advocates of wacky physics cite Einstein and others.
Advocates of worldwide conspiracy theories often cite
facts of established historians.

Your appeal to authority does not provide a compelling
reason to believe that life started at conception.

What you need is an argument, not merely a list of
people who agree with you.

As for your idea of starting life when a multicellular
stage is reach, the question is why.
Why draw the line there? Why not draw the line when
an individual starts to read, say?

> Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
> LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
> -- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
> there, please let me know.

I tried to criticise what was on there before.
You dropped out of the discussion when you
had no argument.

Are you willing to discuss this now?

Regards
Tim

Ben-Hur
Messala: Sextus, you ask how to fight an idea and I'll
tell you how. With another idea

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:05:03 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com> wrote in part:

> I had written:
>
> Robert Goodman wrote: Different people have different ideas on when
life
> starts.
> Remember Monty Python. Every sperm is sacred. Should every seed be
protected
> against violent aggression?
>
> Robert responded: My writing is not reproduced above. It was someone
> else's.
>
> At times it's difficult to determine who's the author, but thanks for
the
> correction.

The first sentence MIGHT have been mine, but not the rest. I do know
the reference, though. It's to the movie, "The Meaning of Life". Funny
stuff; I recommend it.

> Doris: For the correct facts of human embryology, read "When Do Human
> Beings
> Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving.
The
> article is available on my website.
>
> Frank: Thanks for making this material available. I'm wondering what
> Robert teaches his students in his college biology classes.
>
> Robert: We use real biology books, not tracts such as above.
>
> Doris: Have you read her "tract?" My guess is that you are belittling
it
> sight unseen.

I've probably read it some time. I think I've read all of LFL's stuff
over the years. But I am belittling it in effect sight unseen, just
because of its setting. It's a tract. The situation is exacly like
that explained in a LFL article from some time back, subtitled
approximately, "A Conclusion In Search of A Rationale". People make a
normative judgement first, then try to prove the facts back them up.

> Is your biology textbook written by a *human* embryologist?

It's about humans. We use it for the Introduction To Human Biology
course.

> Robert: Ours says, "It is important to remember, however, that life
is not
> a series of stop-and-start events or individual and isolated periods
of
> time. Instead, it is a biological process that is characterized by
> continuous modification and change."
>
> Doris: How was the author using "life" here? 1) Was he talking of
the life
> of an individual entity? 2) Or did he mean "life" in a general sense,
such
> as old life generates new life and that this process has been ongoing
from
> ancestor to descendent for eons?

The first.

> If Life 1, when does he think that a new being's own life begins?
Frank was
> talking of Life 1.

The authors explain that life can be divided into various periods, but
then add the caution above.

> As I read you Robert, you switched contexts. You changed the topic
from
> Life 1 to Life 2. Evolution is about Life 2, not Life 1, a
distinction that
> even Ph.D.'s in biochemistry should know.

If you've been following the thread, you should realize I've been
discussing both. Frank asked about HUMAN life, so I pointed out that
involves 2 determinations -- one of life in general, the other of human
or non-human.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:14:49 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

Doris: Among her credentials, Dr. Irving was a bench researcher as a
biochemist at NIH. Her article has many references, including lengthy
quotes, from human embryology textbooks that were written by the
acknowledged (among human embryologists) leaders in that field of study. As
she emphasizes in her article, the scientific facts in her article is the
result of their research.

Tim: The NIH has spent money on quack medical research.

Doris: Both Dr. Irving and I are long-time critics of NIH. Whatever NIH's
faults, it doesn't follow, as you seem to imply, that Dr. Irving's
scientific credentials are weak. If you think you are qualified to judge
her scientific expertise, what's your evidence?

Tim: Piggy-backing is a well-known artefact of junk science.

Advocates of creationism cite doubts by evolutionists.
Advocates of wacky physics cite Einstein and others.
Advocates of worldwide conspiracy theories often cite facts of established
historians.

Doris: Are the facts that such advocates are using in their citations true
or false? If they are true, and they support one's case, it seems
reasonable to use them. The abortion-choice side frequently uses such a
tactic. Of course, this leaves the problem of how the buyer can get to
realize that he's being snowed.

In any event, when a group's claims are also made by that group's
intellectual enemies, that can lend support to the group's claim. Of
course, the opposing groups can both be wrong, and further research needs to
be done. This can also be necessary if both sides agree but later evidence
seems to question their conclusions.

Tim: Your appeal to authority does not provide a compelling reason to
believe that life started at conception.

Doris: By "life", do you mean the life of a new member of the species Homo
sapiens? If so, who's your authority for a delayed onset position? What do
you think the marker event is, scientifically.

If you mean the life of a person with rights, what do you think the marker
event is? This isn't a question for science but philosophy, metaphysics and
epistemology.

Tim: What you need is an argument, not merely a list of people who agree
with you.

Doris: What do you think is on my website, www.L4L.org? LFL doesn't merely
assert our positions; we explain and defend them at length.

Tim: As for your idea of starting life when a multicellular stage is reach,
the question is why. Why draw the line there?

Doris: What gives you the idea that that's where I draw the line? I draw
the line where Dr. Guttmacher, et al, drew the line -- at "the fusion of two
single cells, the *ovum* and the *sperm*."

I learned that scientifically, the life of a human being begins at
fertilization not from any pro-life source. I learned it in my high-school
biology class, and learned it again in my college biology class. I remember
seeing at the Natural History Museum in NYC a series of sculptures showing
how human beings look when they begin and how they look at further stages of
development. I've seen photographs and television movies that illustrate
the same facts of a human being's life.

One doesn't have to be pro-life to accept correct science. Alan Guttmacher
was president of Planned Parenthood. PP's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, was named after him. In his 1933 book *Life in the Making*, he
wrote: "We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts
life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is
formed from the fusion of two single cells, the *ovum* and the *sperm*. This
all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time
when it was not part of the common knowledge."

This fact began to be common knowledge when scientists saw the fertilization
of a human oocyte by a human sperm under a microscope for the first time.
That was around the year 1867.

Before I published Dr. Irving's article, I compared her facts to that of a
high school biology textbook I have in my home and saw they were the same.
That book was written by abortion choicers. I could tell, because in one
section, it supports coercive population control.

Tim: Why not draw the line when an individual starts to read, say?

Doris: Because it makes no sense. How can an individual start to read if
that individual doesn't even exist?

Tim: I tried to criticise what was on there before. You dropped out of the
discussion when you had no argument.

Doris: Why are you assuming that I have none? My signature includes a link
my website. Do you mean that I have *no* arguments there whatsoever?

Did you ever consider the possibility that I had no time to respond? I have
a big pile of e-mails and articles I would like to respond to but didn't.
Something new pops up every day that I must get to, and before I know it,
days and weeks have gone by, leaving me with a still larger pile of things
to do.

Tim: Are you willing to discuss this now?

Doris: I have done so on this list before a number of times. It does get
wearying when I have to respond to people who don't seem to even know, let
alone understand, what my positions and arguments are. See, for instance,
where you said above, "As for your idea of starting life when a
multicellular stage is reach, the question is why. Why draw the line there?"
The human zygote, has one cell; the human zygote is a human embryo.

If you are interested in discussing my arguments, feel free to study what's
on my website. If I have the time, I might respond. Doing this response
took too bif of a chunk out of my day.

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

Hi Tim,

> > Among her credentials, Dr. Irving was a bench
> researcher as a
> > biochemist at NIH. Her article has many
> references, including
> > lengthy quotes, from human embryology textbooks
> that were written by
> > the acknowledged (among human embryologists)
> leaders in that field
> > of study. As she emphasizes in her article, the
> scientific facts in
> > her article is the result of their research.
>
> The NIH has spent money on quack medical research.
>
> Piggy-backing is a well-known artefact of junk
> science.
>
> Advocates of creationism cite doubts by
> evolutionists.
> Advocates of wacky physics cite Einstein and others.
> Advocates of worldwide conspiracy theories often
> cite
> facts of established historians.
>
>
> Your appeal to authority does not provide a
> compelling
> reason to believe that life started at conception.
>
>
> What you need is an argument, not merely a list of
> people who agree with you.

It didn't sound to me like Doris was making an appeal
to the authority. The argument was in the article she
referred to; she was simply explaining the credentials
of the person who wrote the article and pointing out
that the article has sources that can be referred to
if one doubts the accuracy of her assertions. (If,
for instance, one thinks the author is distorting
scientific information it's easy to look up the
sources the author was using and verify whether she is
interpreting/quoting the original sources correctly.)

> As for your idea of starting life when a
> multicellular
> stage is reach, the question is why.
> Why draw the line there? Why not draw the line when
> an individual starts to read, say?

I'm doubtful Doris said (or at least meant) that life
begins at the multicellular stage. Most people who
are pro-life assert that life starts at conception -
with just a single cell. The reason, of course, is
that once conception has occurred nothing except for
time and nourishment is needed for the zygote to
become an adult human being. One could say "human
life" begins at some other stage of development, but
it seems to me that conception is the most
scientifically sound and least arbitrary time to
assume that human life begins.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > Robert: We use real biology books, not tracts
> such as above.
> >
> > Doris: Have you read her "tract?" My guess is
> that you are belittling
> it
> > sight unseen.
>
> I've probably read it some time. I think I've read
> all of LFL's stuff
> over the years. But I am belittling it in effect
> sight unseen, just
> because of its setting. It's a tract.

Why is an article on a website devoted to providing
the evidence and arguments for why abortion is wrong
considered a "tract"? Are all articles on websites
that provide evidence and arguments explaining why
abortion should be legal "tracts"? Are all articles
on websites that present any philosophical or ethical
point of view "tracts"?

The
> situation is exacly like
> that explained in a LFL article from some time back,
> subtitled
> approximately, "A Conclusion In Search of A
> Rationale". People make a
> normative judgement first, then try to prove the
> facts back them up.

What is your point in saying this? Humans invariably
have judgments that they believe are "true" which they
then try to back up with evidence and logic. Much of
the debate about when life begins is a prime example
of this tendency. People who want abortion to be
legal invariably say things like no one knows when
"human life" begins or say life begins sometime long
after conception. People who think abortion should be
illegal invariably believe life begins at conception.
There are various facts and reasons that can be used
to support either position; which facts and reasons
people choose to give credence to is significantly
influenced by the conclusions they which to reach.

This isn't to say that everything is entirely a matter
of opinion. One can look at the arguments and
evidence and evaluate them to see how sound they
really are. All I'm saying here is:

- 1. All people have certain things that they believe
are true or want to be true.
- 2. People have a tendency to believe and remember
facts and evidence that support the positions they
like and to discount facts and evidence that do
support those positions.
- 3. Very often people reach judgments first and then
find facts and evidence to support that judgment.

If you think the arguments on Doris's site are wrong,
the proper way to critique them is not to call them
"tracts" or say that the writers reached judgments
first and then found facts and evidence to back up
those opinions (probably some of them did - but if so,
so what?). What you do is look at the arguments and
find where the logical and factual errors are. (This
is something I try to teach my English students -
don't just dismiss an essay as someone's "opinion;"
look at what the author wrote and figure out where the
mistakes are in his or her logic or facts.)

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey ya frank...
Date: 13 Oct 2002 18:59:17 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 07:46, Frank Reichert wrote:

> Understood the syllogism. You have so much "imposed" on me, as you
> probably have those who want to re-define rape as "maybe"
> non-aggressive (at least "sometimes"). I get my jollies off thinking
> about how they will really choose to deal with this one!

Well, keep your delusions, but at least realize that they are nothing
more than delusions. Nobody has said that rapes never involve
aggression, merely that they do not always involve violence. you are
putting forth a strawman, or a deception, your choice.

Try the dictionary, or even a thesaurus. Violence is not the same thing
as aggression. Especially since one can, and often does, use violence in
self defense. Oh, but you don't want to go there, do you? That would
show the inconsistency in your argument; it would become a "special
pleading". We'd probably see "well it isn't violent/violence if done in
self defense" That too, would be false. Violence != aggression.

yeah using words for what they mean is nitpicking and mouse milking.
Sure. Pull the other one.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey ya frank...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:40:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 07:46, Frank Reichert wrote to Larry Fullmer:
> > Understood the syllogism. You have so much "imposed" on me, as you
> > probably have those who want to re-define rape as "maybe"
> > non-aggressive (at least "sometimes"). I get my jollies off thinking
> > about how they will really choose to deal with this one!

You replied:
> Well, keep your delusions, but at least realize that they are nothing
> more than delusions. Nobody has said that rapes never involve
> aggression, merely that they do not always involve violence. you are
> putting forth a strawman, or a deception, your choice.

No strawman intended at all. I put forth what most people believe rape
is: "A 'violent' act". I said so in clear and unmistakable language.
Rape is ALWAYS a violent act. So what words in what I said don't you
understand? It is violent in that it is forced upon someone's body
against their own will or choice. I *DID NOT* say that force is
always wrong, did I? Nor, did I say that *VIOLENCE* is always wrong,
did I? The issue here is "violence", and all rapes constitute a
violation of another body, whether conscious or not, and against their
own will. Therefore, it is violence.

> Try the dictionary, or even a thesaurus. Violence is not the same thing
> as aggression.

Not always, but certainly in this case it fits entirely. The rape
itself is the embodiment of violence. I also stated just previous to
this, that other violent acts may occur in a rape scenario, and I gave
various examples of that. But rape is, in itself, a violent act in
and of itself. Maybe it's time for YOU to consult a thesaurus, and if
that won't help you, maybe the tooth fiery can.

> Especially since one can, and often does, use violence in
> self defense. Oh, but you don't want to go there, do you?

I just DID go there. Read my above. Violence is not always wrong!
Maybe you'll pull another ploy like Robert usually does, and just
leave what I just wrote out in your reply, if any. But I said it, and
everyone around here ought to know what I just said. Violence, like
many other responses has a two-fold meaning. It can be done ought for
aggression, or it can be done as a mechanism of self-defence. In
other words, if the rapist is killed in his/her act by the raped
(defending his/her self against the rape), I would certainly qualify
that as justifiable and morally right use of force! Now, what did I
just say that might give you a reason for asking me to consult with a
thesaurus?

> That would
> show the inconsistency in your argument; it would become a "special
> pleading". We'd probably see "well it isn't violent/violence if done in
> self defense" That too, would be false. Violence != aggression.

Violence is NOT always aggressive Bill! That is why military doctrine
differentiates between "offensive and defensive" uses of force.
Offensive force is always a first strike type of thing, that has a lot
to do with achieving certain goals and objectives through the use of
that force. There is nothing particularly "aggressive" in someone
defending themselves against a rapist, or a burglar, or a violent
confrontation of any kind in which an individual may be confronted
with outside aggression not of their own making.

So, in reality, I have no inconsistencies at all in my argument. Rape
is a violent act. And that act is morally wrong, and so is the force
behind it. Any response to that act against the rapist using
sufficient force to defend his/her self against such aggression is NOT
morally wrong, but a morally right use of force in terms of
self-defence. Again, is there anything is what I just wrote that you
can't understand?

> yeah using words for what they mean is nitpicking and mouse milking.
> Sure. Pull the other one.

Well. I do know enough about the English language [yes, I use
international english versus American english] to know that I have put
forth plain, clear, and otherwise convincing criteria on both
"aggression" and the "morally right or wrongful" use of force. I am
not about to join the "pro-rape" crowd around here that might suggest
that all rapes are not always a product of violence! Yea, call that a
"strawman" if you will, but if the shoe fits, certainly be man enough
to wear it. Rape is always a product of violence. It violates another
human being against his/her own will, and by the use of immoral force.
That in itself constitutes violence always.

No so sure what you mean by "Pull the other one.". Can't say for sure
who is pulling what from who at the moment.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey ya frank...
Date: 14 Oct 2002 21:55:14 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 05:40, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 07:46, Frank Reichert wrote to Larry Fullmer:
> > > Understood the syllogism. You have so much "imposed" on me, as you
> > > probably have those who want to re-define rape as "maybe"
> > > non-aggressive (at least "sometimes"). I get my jollies off thinking
> > > about how they will really choose to deal with this one!
>
> You replied:
> > Well, keep your delusions, but at least realize that they are nothing
> > more than delusions. Nobody has said that rapes never involve
> > aggression, merely that they do not always involve violence. you are
> > putting forth a strawman, or a deception, your choice.
>
> No strawman intended at all. I put forth what most people believe rape
> is: "A 'violent' act". I said so in clear and unmistakable language.
> Rape is ALWAYS a violent act. So what words in what I said don't you
> understand? It is violent in that it is forced upon someone's body
> against their own will or choice. I *DID NOT* say that force is
> always wrong, did I? Nor, did I say that *VIOLENCE* is always wrong,
> did I? The issue here is "violence", and all rapes constitute a
> violation of another body, whether conscious or not, and against their
> own will. Therefore, it is violence.

A violation does not constitute violence. by that line, all violations
are therefore violence. The words may share the same first four letters,
but that does not mean they are related or similar, or synonyms. To say
that someone is saying that rape is non-aggressive, when the argument is
made, is deception, mistaken reading, or strawman. You've admitted
nobody has made the argument, therefore mistaken reading is out. That
leaves you two options.

>
> > Try the dictionary, or even a thesaurus. Violence is not the same thing
> > as aggression.
>
> Not always, but certainly in this case it fits entirely. The rape
> itself is the embodiment of violence. I also stated just previous to
> this, that other violent acts may occur in a rape scenario, and I gave
> various examples of that. But rape is, in itself, a violent act in
> and of itself. Maybe it's time for YOU to consult a thesaurus, and if
> that won't help you, maybe the tooth fiery can.

Tell you what list the synonyms for violent and aggression. Note they
are different.

Wait, you likely won't so here they are:
=======================
One entry found for violent.

Entry Word: violent
Function: adjective
Text: Synonyms INTENSE 1, concentrated, desperate, exquisite, fierce,
furious, terrible, vehement, vicious
Related Word forceful, forcible, mighty, potent, powerful, strong;
extreme, immoderate, inordinate; acute, cutting, piercing, splitting
=========================
One entry found for aggression.

Entry Word: aggression
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms ATTACK 1, assailment, assault, offense, offensive, onfall,
onset, onslaught
2
Synonyms ATTACK 2, aggressiveness, belligerence, combativeness, fight,
pugnacity
=========================

Hmm aggression != violent. That's my point.

> > That would
> > show the inconsistency in your argument; it would become a "special
> > pleading". We'd probably see "well it isn't violent/violence if done in
> > self defense" That too, would be false. Violence != aggression.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Violence is NOT always aggressive Bill!

uh, yeah, that was what I said, thank you for paying attention.

> So, in reality, I have no inconsistencies at all in my argument. Rape
> is a violent act. And that act is morally wrong, and so is the force
> behind it. Any response to that act against the rapist using
> sufficient force to defend his/her self against such aggression is NOT
> morally wrong, but a morally right use of force in terms of
> self-defence. Again, is there anything is what I just wrote that you
> can't understand?

I understand everything, but that does not constitute correctness.
Unfortunately, all you can see is what is not there. I'm talking about
one specific thing, that rape (though wrong) is not *always* violent/an
act of violence.

> > yeah using words for what they mean is nitpicking and mouse milking.
> > Sure. Pull the other one.
>
> Well. I do know enough about the English language [yes, I use
> international english versus American english] to know that I have put
> forth plain, clear, and otherwise convincing criteria on both
> "aggression" and the "morally right or wrongful" use of force. I am

Irrelevant, since the distinction is regarding rape and violence, not
wrongful use of force or aggression. Hence, the strawman.

> not about to join the "pro-rape" crowd around here that might suggest
> that all rapes are not always a product of violence! Yea, call that a
> "strawman" if you will, but if the shoe fits, certainly be man enough
> to wear it.

Uh, Frank, it *is* a straw man, since NOBODY is being "pro-rape". yes,
Frank, wear the shoe, it is a perfect fit. Maybe I should alter the
subject to refer to you as "pro-deceit"?

> Rape is always a product of violence. It violates another
> human being against his/her own will, and by the use of immoral force.
> That in itself constitutes violence always.

Okay, let us look at this argument. Logically.

Premise A:
Rape violates another (I'm leaving of against the will, since it is
redundant[1])

Premise B:
The force used in performing a rape is immoral

Premise C:
Violating another by use of immoral force always constitutes violence.

Conclusion:
Rape is violent.

If this is not what you meant, explain better, for this is the
deconstruction of what you wrote.

Now, we can look at the argument, and apply logic to it. Aside from the
very circular nature of it, it carries implications. If the argument is
held as true, then substitute "Rape" for any other action, and you see
the problem. I'll save the space, and not rewrite it, you can replace
the word in your mind and see the result. If an act meets Premise A's
implied condition (it violates another), and Premise B's implied
condition (the force used to accomplish it is immoral (see the circular
reference(s)?)), then by the presence of Premise C, said act is violent.

Now, on to [1]. The "against will" clause provides a limited range. I
removed it as redundant in the above sequence, since one can not violate
with the permission of the would-be victim (one of my annoyances is "No
trespassing without permission" signs. No, really?!).

However, that is not to say that it can not still be used as a
qualifier. I mention it here, because I disagree with what it results
in. In order to be against a will, the will has to express a preference.
This means that unless someone says no or yes, no will is expressed, and
hence, can not be acted in favor of or opposition to. That would mean
that an unconscious person or a person otherwise unable to express a
preference, would not qualify; they would not be violated "against
his/her will".

In MY view, despite your bald-faced lies to the contrary, that act,
though not an act of violence, would not be morally right. Period. get
it through your head, Frank. Violence is not a condition for morality or
"rightness", and you agree on that (thank goodness!). Therefore, it is
not a qualifier in the case of rape. That means that even if a rape is
not a violent act, IT CAN STILL BE WRONG! It gets no clearer than that.

Here, let me put it this way:

Premise A:
A person has the right to to their property, and use/disposal of it as
they desire/see fit.

Premise B:
Performing an act (usage, disposition, etc.) regarding property against
or without the permission of the owner is a violation of said persons
rights.

Premise C:
Violations of rights are wrong.

Now, we have a framework that we can drop an given act into and see how
it comes out. If all assertions are correct, then the conclusion is
correct.

If we assert that rape makes use of/disposes of property without the
permission of the rightful owner, and we accept Premises A and C, then
the act is wrong.

Notice violence was not a qualifier, and need not be. If we agree that
violating rights is wrong, then all we need to do is determine if an act
violates rights, to determine if it is wrong. The act, NOT the nature of
it, is the determinant.

I'm done. Do what you will, I'm done with this subject. To continue
beyond would be of little value against your obstinacy. Though since the
effort would not be great, it would not be mouse milking" ;^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey ya frank...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> A violation does not constitute violence. by that
> line, all violations
> are therefore violence. The words may share the same
> first four letters,
> but that does not mean they are related or similar,
> or synonyms.

Actually the words "violate" and "violent" *are*
related. My dictionary on word origins has this
information about the word "violate":

[Its first recorded appearance in the English language
was the 15th century.]

Latin _violare_ 'treat with violence' was derived from
the noun _vis_ 'force, energy' (whose accusative form,
_vim_, is probably the source of English _vim_). Its
past participle gave English _violate_, while it's
present participle is ultimately responsible for
English _violent_.

Certainly the historical connection between the words
offers support for those of us who think in practice
there is a connection between "violence" and
"violations."

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: aggression & Re: rape and violence
Date: 13 Oct 2002 19:04:29 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 09:37, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry smith wrote to Michelle Eilers...
>
> > you're nearly as sick as i am, trying to talk sense to the "logician",
mr.
> > andersen.
> > any act which deprives a self-owning human of what is rightfully theirs
is
> > an aggressive act - be it depriving them of their life, or their
property,
> > or entering a vagina without consent.
>
> I especially like what you wrote about the reverse scenario, that is,
> women raping men! I donno, that is, what might qualify for that
> really. But you are correct, particularly in your use of violating

Try the cases that have been tried. Use a modicum of medical knowledge,
and you'll see that not only is it physically possible, it is also
factual. IIRC, 8% of rape accusations/trials are with a woman as the
perpetrator.

> individuals against their own free will. That has to almost always

How can one violate someone with their free will consent? ;^)

> qualify as aggression, and a force of some definition although in some
> case not particularly of a cognizant nature at the time.

Almost always? under what circumstances would it not?

>
> But to lighten things up here a bit. I'll be turning 54 on October
> 18. I've yet to experience any particular instance in all these years
> of any half-way decent-looking woman aggressively tying me down and
> forcing me to have sex with her against my will! A fantasy maybe, but
> certainly wouldn't qualify as a rape case at least in my mind.

That would be a fantasy of domination, not of rape. There is o such
thing as fantasy where the rape is the object, just a vehicle. All such
fantasies (according to the brain-docs anyway) are about being able to
do something without the control, or the guilt of the act.

Of course, you could live out that "fantasy" in Nevada. ;)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: aggression & Re: rape and violence
Date: 13 Oct 2002 19:27:49 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 09:37, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry smith wrote to Michelle Eilers...
>
> > you're nearly as sick as i am, trying to talk sense to the "logician",
mr.
> > andersen.
> > any act which deprives a self-owning human of what is rightfully theirs
is
> > an aggressive act - be it depriving them of their life, or their
property,
> > or entering a vagina without consent.

Yes, but it may or may not be an act of violence.

> I especially like what you wrote about the reverse scenario, that is,
> women raping men! I donno, that is, what might qualify for that
> really.

Does the Spokane County piece I posted qualify in your mind?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Social pressures
Date: 13 Oct 2002 19:06:32 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 18:12, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > > (One of the essays I assign my students to write
> > deals
> > > with social pressures people face. Usually with
> > that
> > > assignment I get LOTS of essays from students -
> > > usually female, but sometimes even male - about
> > the
> > > pressures women face to be thin and/or beautiful.
> > > This is definitely a major pressure women face.
> > > However, I have never ONCE received an essay from
> > a
> > > student about the enormous social pressures men
> > face
> > > to earn money, earn status, and/or be
> > "successful."
> > > And I think the pressure on men to succeed is just
> > as
> > > strong as the pressure on women to be physically
> > > attractive. Unfortunately, most people don't even
> > > seem to realize that men DO face that pressure.)
> >
> > I am curious, what "level" are your students? Are we
> > talking Jr. High,
> > Sr. High, collegiate?
>
> They're college level and of a great age range: some
> are still in high school and getting college credit;
> others are in the 60s.

Interesting. Cool.

> There is quite a lot made in the media (magazine
> articles, books, tv movies, etc.) about the
> destructive consequences of the pressures on women to
> be beautiful. This makes it quite easy for women -
> even teenagers - to recognize that this IS a pressure
> they face. On the other hand, it seems to me that
> most people don't recognize that pressures on men to
> "succeed" as just as strong - and just as potentially
> destructive - as the pressures on women to be
> beautiful. The lack of recognition of this pressure
> on men makes it difficult for even grown men to
> recognize that they DO face this pressure.

I am in complete agreement here.

>
> And, as you point out, even if men do recognize the
> pressure they probably aren't likely to talk about it
> for fear of appearing "weak." Thanks to the feminist
> movement people have come to recognize many of the
> forms of "female powerlessness" - which is a good
> thing, of course. But unfortunately many people still
> don't recognize most forms of "male powerlessness."
> Thinking of careers, for instance, it is much more
> acceptable for a woman to enter traditionally "male"
> fields than for men to enter traditionally "female"
> fields. Also, when kids come along it's always the
> woman's "choice" to stay home with the kids or to
> continue working - it's just taken for granted that
> the man will, of course, continue with his job. In
> many ways, women have a lot more choices at present
> than men do.

An interesting, and I think prescient perspective, Michelle. Good to
hear someone else saying it. :)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: meanings of "violent"
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> Try the dictionary, or even a thesaurus. Violence is
> not the same thing
> as aggression. Especially since one can, and often
> does, use violence in
> self defense. Oh, but you don't want to go there, do
> you? That would
> show the inconsistency in your argument; it would
> become a "special
> pleading". We'd probably see "well it isn't
> violent/violence if done in
> self defense" That too, would be false. Violence !=
> aggression.
>
> yeah using words for what they mean is nitpicking
> and mouse milking.
> Sure. Pull the other one.

Part of the problem with trying to decide whether
something is "violent" or not is that the word itself
is subjective; if I'm recalling correctly, Bill, your
dictionary's definition of "violent" said it was an
"excessive use of force." If that's the case, I don't
think it's surprising that people are going to
disagree about whether a particular action involves an
"excessive" use of force. I, as well as some other
people here, think that raping a woman, even if she is
unconscious at the time, is an "excessive" use of
force. Other people don't. Arguments could presented
supporting each point of view and one or the other
might prove to be more defensible; still, I think
whether a person thinks any particular thing -
including a particular use of force - is "excessive"
ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion.

My dictionary defintion of violent is somewhat
different from yours: a) acting with or characterized
by great physical force, so as to injure, damage or
destroy; extreme roughness of action b) acting or
characterized by force unlawfully or callously used.

In my opinion, the term "violent" more accurately
describes initiated force than force used in
self-defense. I don't typically think of force used
in self-defense as being "unlawfully or callously
used" and - so long as the defender only uses enough
force to deflect the force used against her - I
wouldn't consider the force to be "excessive." On the
other hand, in self-defense the force used might be
"great" and it might be intended to "injure, damage or
destroy" (certainly if someone committed some
aggression that threatened my life - in a mugging or
rape, for instance - I certainly would be willing to
use "great physical force" in self-defense to "injure,
damage or destroy" the perpetrator). So, depending on
the definition of "violent" you're using, a particular
action might or might not seem "violent."

Aggression (at least the way libertarians generally
use it) means initiations of force. Self defense is
force used to counter initiations of force. There is
some subjectivity in these definitions and there may
be disagreement about whether something is aggression
or self defense. Still, I think the term "violent"
involves *far* more subjectivity than the other two
terms, particularly in a libertarian context, since
the word is based on the idea of "excessive" or
"extreme" or "great" uses of physical force. There is
an inherent subjectivity in such terms that makes it
highly unlikely that everyone is going to agree about
whether some particular action is "violent."

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: meanings of "violent"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:09:59 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> My dictionary defintion of violent is somewhat
> different from yours: a) acting with or characterized
> by great physical force, so as to injure, damage or
> destroy; extreme roughness of action b) acting or
> characterized by force unlawfully or callously used.
>
> In my opinion, the term "violent" more accurately
> describes initiated force than force used in
> self-defense. I don't typically think of force used
> in self-defense as being "unlawfully or callously
> used" and - so long as the defender only uses enough
> force to deflect the force used against her - I
> wouldn't consider the force to be "excessive." On the
> other hand, in self-defense the force used might be
> "great" and it might be intended to "injure, damage or
> destroy" (certainly if someone committed some
> aggression that threatened my life - in a mugging or
> rape, for instance - I certainly would be willing to
> use "great physical force" in self-defense to "injure,
> damage or destroy" the perpetrator). So, depending on
> the definition of "violent" you're using, a particular
> action might or might not seem "violent."

Sure. And how about boxing? That's violent, and it's probably
considered callous by some, and has been unlawful in certain places &
times, though it's nothing like the cases we've described before because
all of them lacked consent by the recipient. Storms can be violent too.

I think the relationship between the words violent and violate may be
causing mischief here. One would think that to be violENT, an action
must violATE someone or something. But that's not always so. (Since
writing this, I see Frank brought up the same word connection, but I
won't add or subtract any more from this post before I send it.)

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: meanings of "violent"
Date: 14 Oct 2002 21:12:29 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 23:18, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > Try the dictionary, or even a thesaurus. Violence is
> > not the same thing
> > as aggression. Especially since one can, and often
> > does, use violence in
> > self defense. Oh, but you don't want to go there, do
> > you? That would
> > show the inconsistency in your argument; it would
> > become a "special
> > pleading". We'd probably see "well it isn't
> > violent/violence if done in
> > self defense" That too, would be false. Violence !=
> > aggression.
> >
> > yeah using words for what they mean is nitpicking
> > and mouse milking.
> > Sure. Pull the other one.
>
> Part of the problem with trying to decide whether
> something is "violent" or not is that the word itself
> is subjective; if I'm recalling correctly, Bill, your
> dictionary's definition of "violent" said it was an
> "excessive use of force." If that's the case, I don't
> think it's surprising that people are going to
> disagree about whether a particular action involves an
> "excessive" use of force. I, as well as some other
> people here, think that raping a woman, even if she is
> unconscious at the time, is an "excessive" use of
> force. Other people don't. Arguments could presented
> supporting each point of view and one or the other
> might prove to be more defensible; still, I think
> whether a person thinks any particular thing -
> including a particular use of force - is "excessive"
> ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion.

In the legal situation, there is a guideline: no more than necessary to
achieve the desired goal.

Thus, *IF* one were to go down the "excessive force" route, I would most
likely start at this point, and go from there. From there you determine
what "force" (which in this context refers to physical action, not the
generalized concept of "force") would be required to achieve the act. IN
THAT CASE, a scientific, non-opinion determination could indeed be made.
However, since the details of determining this, though well known, would
likely be too matter-of-fact for some here, I see no point in going
there.

>
> My dictionary defintion of violent is somewhat
> different from yours: a) acting with or characterized
> by great physical force, so as to injure, damage or
> destroy; extreme roughness of action b) acting or
> characterized by force unlawfully or callously used.
>
> In my opinion, the term "violent" more accurately
> describes initiated force than force used in
> self-defense. I don't typically think of force used
> in self-defense as being "unlawfully or callously
> used" and - so long as the defender only uses enough
> force to deflect the force used against her - I
> wouldn't consider the force to be "excessive." On the
> other hand, in self-defense the force used might be
> "great" and it might be intended to "injure, damage or
> destroy" (certainly if someone committed some
> aggression that threatened my life - in a mugging or
> rape, for instance - I certainly would be willing to
> use "great physical force" in self-defense to "injure,
> damage or destroy" the perpetrator). So, depending on
> the definition of "violent" you're using, a particular
> action might or might not seem "violent."

Prior to here, I've never heard a definition or use of violent that used
intent or lawfulness as a determining factor. I'm sure you can
appreciate that whether a force is lawful or not is a rather poor factor
outside of a court of law. Laws change.

This is why definitions are important, there are always ramifications to
them. If, as we have here, a definition of violence has as a qualifying
factor the lawfulness of the force/action used, then you change
definitions by fiat (one imposes -- as in establish by authority). In
such cases, where it is defined that a man and woman cohabitating
constitutes consent (hence legal for a man to rape a woman), then the
lawful nature of the act would make it non-violent, depending on the
excessive force. Having had *some* training on the mater by a former
force escalation instructor for the state, there are legal definitions
for "excessive use of force".

IMO, it would be a really poor qualifier. Just because someone used
*just* the right amount of force to perform an act should have no
bearing on the legality of the act. the act should be legal/illegal
based on the act. For example, a murder is a murder regardless of the
means used to kill the victim. To illustrate "excessive force" in this
instance would be a killer that slowly kills the victim, causing
suffering, etc.. However, to kill using an "instant poison" or one that
induces sleep or coma prior to death, or a single shot to the head,
would not be "excessive".

Rape should not be legal or illegal based on whether or not it was an
act of violence, but because it is an intrusion on the rights of the
rapee. Unfortunately, too many people fail to grasp this. This is why we
have "additional" or "enhanced" penalties to crimes. Kill someone, go to
prison for X years. Use a gun to do so, and go for X+10 years (numbers
are for example purposes only and do not constitute a representation of
a particular set of laws). If someone determines you did it because you
"hate" the other person, tack on another fifteen.

This is why, contrary to Franks unfounded assertions, this is not "mouse
milking" (a great amount of effort for a minuscule return). This process
is aimed at refining and clarifying the definitions in law so as to
avoid these things. Had so-called "nitpickers" been at present and
"forceful" in so being, we would have had a much clearer constitution,
clearing up the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses. As
it is, according to the writing of the persons involved, the *assumed*
that everyone was (and they were right) using the same definitions for
these phrases at the time. Yet that assumption, and failure to be
specific and unambiguous has left us in the present situation of a
massive welfare state, and massive intrusions on personal and civil
liberties in the realm of business.

>
> Aggression (at least the way libertarians generally
> use it) means initiations of force. Self defense is
> force used to counter initiations of force. There is
> some subjectivity in these definitions and there may
> be disagreement about whether something is aggression
> or self defense. Still, I think the term "violent"
> involves *far* more subjectivity than the other two
> terms, particularly in a libertarian context, since
> the word is based on the idea of "excessive" or
> "extreme" or "great" uses of physical force. There is
> an inherent subjectivity in such terms that makes it
> highly unlikely that everyone is going to agree about
> whether some particular action is "violent."

Right, which is why *I* believe that absolute statements, such as Frank
makes, that a given act is ALWAYS violent, are less-than-useful. One
could say "most", or "usually" (and yes, Frank, I have used those here),
but to say always is *no* different than never. To compound that error
by then saying that opposition to that assertion is the same thing as
being for the act referred to is asinine, counter-productive, and
deceitful when done knowingly.

Thankfully, you have the sense to not do that. Again, thank you.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: meanings of "violent"
Date: 14 Oct 2002 21:56:11 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 14:09, Robert Goodman wrote:

> I think the relationship between the words violent and violate may be
> causing mischief here. One would think that to be violENT, an action
> must violATE someone or something. But that's not always so. (Since
> writing this, I see Frank brought up the same word connection, but I
> won't add or subtract any more from this post before I send it.)

Yeah, I was staying away from this one myself.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: meanings of "violent"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:41:14 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:

> Rape should not be legal or illegal based on whether or not it was an
> act of violence, but because it is an intrusion on the rights of the
> rapee. Unfortunately, too many people fail to grasp this. This is why
we
> have "additional" or "enhanced" penalties to crimes. Kill someone, go
to
> prison for X years. Use a gun to do so, and go for X+10 years (numbers
> are for example purposes only and do not constitute a representation
of
> a particular set of laws). If someone determines you did it because
you
> "hate" the other person, tack on another fifteen. This is why,
contrary to Franks
> unfounded assertions, this is not "mouse
> milking" (a great amount of effort for a minuscule return).

I'd brought that up twice, but nobody seemed to care. There are many
facets of criminal law that seem to turn on fuzzy sentiment. Sometimes
civil law, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank you, frank......fuck you bill & robert.....
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:32:52 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, frank,

thanks for the below communication, frank.

i didn't know anybody but me had robert figured out, with his soulmate, bill
andersen, rising to his defense in relation to the "non-pejorative" word
"imposition": as in "a woman defending herself from rape is imposing on the
rapist". and even defending him in relation to "convictions make convicts".
puke!!

uhhh, yeah, as i see it, we're a lot like the democarts & republicans - even
the commies and fascists: it's always the assholes who make the most noise
(and i write that being the first person in the group to use the "f" word).

i'm done with it, frank. soon's i get your next message about how to
unsubscribe, i'll be doing that - especially since now even billie has
refused to answer questions on a technicality.

i have a house and a dog to take care of. a woman to find. a job to keep
up on. books to read. music to listen too. i've no time for short-dick
assholes.

thanks for the below communication. i wish you'd not held your fire,
though, in the end, it would not have mattered.

TO THE QUIBLERS, WITH SHORT DICKS: the fundamental principle of
libertarianism is "no iniation of force". now, it's true, there are
derivative concepts, like fraud, which involve no direct initiated force,
but they are derivatives. every human being is entitled to their own life,
liberty, and justly acquired property. "initiated violence" may not be the
exactly correct word for those assholes who do not recognize the fundamental
value of the principle. aggression is a better one. but, as i wrote,
fraud, and non-violent rape, are derivative concepts, and agression and
violence are damned near synonyms, for good reason.

it pains me more than i can bear that assholes like robert and bill wanna
quibble, rather than write in a friendly manner, about the absolutely
fundamental value of the principle.

"NO FORCE", and none of it's deravitives. a child oughta be able to
understand that. but not billy and robert!!!, with "things" to prove.

i'm sick of it, frank!!

LF

ps please write me privately anytime.

on 10/12/02 7:36 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings Larry!
>
> larry fullmer wrote to Bill Anderson...
>
>> i strongly disagree with you about robert, and what i figure he has been
>> arguing for, but i could be wrong about that, too. i was greatly
>> dissapointed to see you rise to his defense, since he was speaking pure
>> bullshit, as i saw it. as he wrote, bill, he truly was arguing against
>> convictions, of any sort, including convictions about liberty.
>
> I have no idea why you are so surprised, honestly. Robert's chief game
> usually appears to be merely to play on words (at least as long as he
> can get by with it), and exercises in mousemilking frankly. Sometimes
> Bill gets in on the same act, so what can I say? On the other hand,
> Bill often seems to have real principled "convictions", but they too
> are frequently lost in mindless statistics and again, even MORE word
> games that seem to endlessly go on around here these days.
>
> For me, "Philosophy" is what rules at the end of the day. "What DO YOU
> really believe?" has to be the overriding question. Give me some
> examples of what cultures have truly survived based entirely upon a
> consensus of mere statistics? Greece, Rome, Western Civilization? The
> Soviet Union? Ideas survive because they are dynamic and prevail over
> a very long period of time, transcending really, many civilizations.
> I guess I consider Cicero the real hero, or at least give him a lot of
> historical credit, in a lot of ways, in defining what really matters
> in terms of human history.
>
> We are not going to migrate very far on the current political
> spectrum, if we have no philosophical basis on which we hang our hat.
> Are there laws in human nature that prevail? Sure there are! Lot's of
> 'em! Rape is a violent act, for example; always has been, always will
> be! Certainly, natural law, gives us hundreds of years of examples
> that that is the case -- always. The same is true in the case of the
> wanton destruction (murder) of another human being. We can simply go
> on and on with examples, but in reality human history embraces
> "natural law". In the converse, "natural law" is a part of human
> recorded history. Again, Cicero got it really right, and that was a
> long, long time ago.
>
> If you really want to discuss libertarian history, you don't
> necessarily start out with Ann Rand. You start out with real
> philosophical thinkers such as Cicero, John Locke and others who
> really defined natural law in terms of the human species. At some
> point, you really do have to address the issue of "inalienable rights"
> on the basis of such recorded history.
>
> Maybe that's why I don't usually get so hung up in discussions on
> whether rape can "sometimes" be non-aggressive. Such semantics are a
> useless exercise that defy common reason and moral history.
>
> To summarize this a bit, aggression is aggression, regardless of the
> play on words that some feel justified in using to further their own
> parochial interests. Can anyone be "free" when predators choose such
> words to justify their own assault upon another human being, or at
> least an assault by someone else using this rationale for
> justifications for their violent acts?
>
> Maybe that might be really what is lacking after all, e.g.: a central
> and accepted philosophy. How can we form any movement at all when we
> fail to recognize a central reference point in terms of philosophical
> agreement? Just maybe, we are making the very same mistakes here that
> we have long accused the Republicans and Democrats of making, by
> creating a group, party, or organization that has the largest tent!
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank you, frank......fuck you bill & robert.....
Date: 13 Oct 2002 23:38:05 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 00:32, larry smith wrote:

> i'm done with it, frank. soon's i get your next message about how to
> unsubscribe, i'll be doing that - especially since now even billie has

I answered your questions and you dind;t like the answers. Tough
noogies.

See the bottom of each and every email you get for unsubscribing
information.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank you, frank......fuck you bill & robert.....
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:14:50 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry smith wrote to Frank Reichert...

You previously wrote:
> thanks for the below communication, frank.
> i didn't know anybody but me had robert figured out

Oh yea. Robert has been a member on this conference for a great many
years, and I know his persona very well.

, with his soulmate, bill
> andersen, rising to his defense in relation to the "non-pejorative" word
> "imposition": as in "a woman defending herself from rape is imposing on
the
> rapist". and even defending him in relation to "convictions make
convicts".
> puke!!

Maybe that is what surprises me, is that Bill seems to be taking the
view (alongside Robert) that word games can win philosophical
arguments, as I wrote previously. Maybe they sometimes can, but in
the end view it is what people really believe that counts, and what
philosophy is the guiding force behind that belief. Hostile Islamic
extremists after all, can also play the same silly word games, and
they do, in fact they seem to be better at it at this moment, that
American propaganda, at least on the world stage. I can only suggest,
just as of tonight with Bill's objections, that he wishes to employ
word games over philosophy or ideology. That is truly sad. I was
hoping for much better than this from him.

> uhhh, yeah, as i see it, we're a lot like the democarts & republicans -
even
> the commies and fascists: it's always the assholes who make the most noise
> (and i write that being the first person in the group to use the "f"
word).

Well, I don't know about all of that, since Liberty Northwest has been
graced, or cursed, with a lot of personalities for over a decade,
including hard-line islamic fundamentalists believe it or not. And
that was long before 9/11 ever took place.

> i'm done with it, frank.

So, why are YOU done with it Larry? You're not about to escape
anytime soon from the rest of the planet that doesn't agree with you!
Stick around, stand your ground, make your case, because that's really
what we all do everyday anyway if we are honest and have anything
coming close to personal principles. This is about as great of a place
to do that than anything else I can recommend. You are welcome here
Larry! If you have principles, and wish to make your case, you are
free to do that right here on Liberty Northwest, just as everyone else
is.

> i have a house and a dog to take care of. a woman to find. a job to keep
> up on. books to read. music to listen too. i've no time for short-dick
> assholes.

So, what's your point? Are you going to tell me that there aren't
"short-dick assholes" maybe living next door to you, or, at the
supermarket, in the letters-to-the editor column in your local
newspaper? At least here, you have a tremendous voice to make your
case in public view and without censorship.

> thanks for the below communication. i wish you'd not held your fire,
> though, in the end, it would not have mattered.

I've never been particularly known to "hold my fire". Even Bill
Anderson and I often have rather hostile communication sometimes,
including just tonight. But I still respect the man. Robert Goodman,
believe it or not, is another, although we communicate very
differently on many occasions, and we communicate in very different
ways.

> TO THE QUIBLERS, WITH SHORT DICKS: the fundamental principle of
> libertarianism is "no iniation of force".

To that, I agree entirely. But as I said in a previous post, force is
not always morally wrong, particularly when such force is made in an
effort of self-defence.

> now, it's true, there are
> derivative concepts, like fraud, which involve no direct initiated force,
> but they are derivatives. every human being is entitled to their own
life,
> liberty, and justly acquired property. "initiated violence" may not be
the
> exactly correct word for those assholes who do not recognize the
fundamental
> value of the principle. aggression is a better one. but, as i wrote,
> fraud, and non-violent rape, are derivative concepts, and agression and
> violence are damned near synonyms, for good reason.

Maybe a connotation between the two words, e.g.: "violation" and
"violence" come to mind. I think I made this point to Bill earlier,
and I hope so. The same can likely be said in other than rape cases,
such as fraud, theft and other matters that have the propensity to use
the initiation of force in a rather covert fashion.

> it pains me more than i can bear that assholes like robert and bill wanna
> quibble, rather than write in a friendly manner, about the absolutely
> fundamental value of the principle.

Yes. I just previously used the word: "philosophy" in much the same
way.

> "NO FORCE", and none of it's deravitives. a child oughta be able to
> understand that. but not billy and robert!!!, with "things" to prove.

With Robert, I have no idea what he is trying to prove. Robert has
been around Liberty Northwest about as long as I can remember, and
that goes back about a decade or so. I am really surprised that Bill
seems to be honing in on the same word games, play on words, and
asserted strawman assertions that "I consult a thesaurus", for
example, when he obviously hasn't taken the time to even digest what I
really wrote. In that, I am at a loss, really. I don't know why.

> i'm sick of it, frank!!

Larry. Maybe so. But you can never really escape it either, and
running away isn't the answer. You confront error, challenge it, the
best way you can, and you use philosophical arguments the best way you
can to do so. You are not doing anything particularly "wrong" here,
except perhaps in your anticipation that hugging your dog and doing
your other routines, will solve much of anything. You can do a great
service by continuing to engage each and every argument that you have
a contribution for, on Liberty Northwest, and everywhere else where
you have such an opportunity for doing so!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: meanings of "violent" - PEARLS BEFORE SWINE....
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:52:47 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bullshit, michelle,

on 10/13/02 10:18 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> There is
> an inherent subjectivity in such terms that makes it
> highly unlikely that everyone is going to agree about
> whether some particular action is "violent."
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers

it's all a matter of opinion, you wrote, snipped.

bullshit. each and every human has an absolute right to their own life,
body, pursuit of happiness, and justly acquired property.

in the case of rape, we have short-dick assholes showing up quibbling about
whether or not it is a violent act if the female (or **even** male is
asleep, or have been drugged).

short-dick assholes make me write: "GOOD FUCKING GAWD!!!!!!!

SEE THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE!! EXCEPT, MAYBE, WITH "JUSTLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY",
EVERY DAMN HUMAN ON THIS PLANET UNDERSTANDS THE PRINCIPLE, IN THEIR HEART OF
HEARTS.

BUT WE HAVE ASSHOLES IN THIS GROUP DEFENDING THE WORD "IMPOSITION", IN LIGHT
OF THE PRINCIPLE - AS IN "A FEMALE (OR MALE) DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM RAPE,
IS IMPOSING ON THE RAPIST".

YOU STAY SO CALM, MICHELLE, WHEN FACED WITH FULL-BLOWN IRRATIONALITY, EVEN
MINE.

THAT DOES MAKE FOR YOU BEING A DAMN GOOD WRITER - THOUGH THERE ARE LOTS OF
"PEARLS BEFORE SWINE".

LF




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: billy - Re: thank you, frank......fuck you bill & robert.....
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:08:10 -0700
From: larry smith <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey, billy,

thanks for the unsubscribing info. i'd missed it, waiting for frank's
weekly email.

it's been sooooo damned nice not having youR quibbling, short-dick crap in
my life for 3-days - you "locician" you. michelle, has it **exactly**
right. ARROGANT!!!!

GOING NOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE, BILLY. IT'S NO DAMN WONDER TO ME THAT YOU WANTED
TO AID ME WITH THAT!!

SEE ASSHOLE (I HOPE NEVER),

LF

on 10/13/02 10:38 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 00:32, larry smith wrote:
>
>> i'm done with it, frank. soon's i get your next message about how to
>> unsubscribe, i'll be doing that - especially since now even billie has
>
> I answered your questions and you dind;t like the answers. Tough
> noogies.
>
> See the bottom of each and every email you get for unsubscribing
> information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: For the Pro-Rapists here...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:37:56 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Yes, I know the subject line is a "strawman", as both Bill Anderson
and Robert Goodman will undoubtedly point out, but in this case, I
believe it fits rather well.

I don't know if everyone here has conceived of this, but this
discussion has turned into an abject nightmare. What really
constitutes "violence" anyway? Certainly someone, man, woman, child,
whatever, who has been violated in a rape, regardless of degree of
consciousness, is a victim of absolute violence! This topic certainly
has everything to do with rape being as being a product of violation,
and violence, intended as an assault against the victim against their
own free will.

I don't know how those amongst us will use their thesaurus and spell
checkers to define the engligh language, but I hope I have made this
case abundantly clear that rape is always an act of violence.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:56:46 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:56:47 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: socialism, fascism, coins and differences.
Date: 14 Oct 2002 22:22:27 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On
> Often -- maybe usually -- changes in the degree of individual liberty
> have come about as a by-product of a movement or struggle along other
> political axes (in this case, pl. of axis, not of ax). That sort of
> thing is likely to continue as long as these powerful polarizing
> tendencies exist. It might help us if we could guess how to take
> advantage of such currents, and also of which currents to be afraid of.

Yes, this is why I see the distinction of differences important. If you
look at the polarization that has been the most successful in the U.S.,
you see that being labeled a "socialist" has had more effect than
fascist. People do not react to the word "fascist" as they do
"socialist". Thus, by pointing out the socialist programs as socialist
programs, you get more pull than calling them fascist.

You see, most Americans believe that fascism is not likely or even not
possible in America. Yet, they do believe that socialism is possible
(though undesirable).

socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates
the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production,
capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power,
permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the
nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)"
(American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Americans are conditioned to believe that the latter is not possible due
to our constitution. Better or worse, that is what they believe. If you
rail against what they believe is impossible (or for it for that
matter), you are not heard; like it or not.

Are they two sides of the same coin? Yes. Are you going to get anywhere
with the people by saying so? Nope. A very few, but then those most
likely knew that (preaching to the choir).

Are there elements of both in today's America. Absolutely. Yet we should
call them by what they are -- which side of the coin, for that is what
people are listening to.

In few, specialized issues, and to specific individuals or groups that
are open to the idea, you can say things like "The Democrats want to cut
off your right hand and the Republicans your left." and get traction.
but to blindly say that to everything, and expect progress or traction,
is a peak of ignorance; and ultimately futile.

> In all of USA history, there has never been a deliberately, consciously
> authoritarian tendency of any significant size or power. Decreases in
> freedom in the USA have frequently come about from movements that were
> aimed largely at increasing freedom. Take the gov't schools...please!
> The system came about and assumed its present form thru the interplay of
> interest groups most of which were afraid of what they saw as
> authoritarian potential in their competition -- and the interplay
> continues to this day.

Yes, and an important realization it is. I wish more would make it. They
didn't stand up and say "Let us make a socialized school system!". Of
course, they didn't rise up and say let us make a socialized medicine
system". Yet the opposition stood up and said "it is socialism" and the
masses listened. had they stood up and said "fascist system", the masses
would have not listened; for they would not have believed.

"A person is smart, people are dumb." -- Agent K, MIB

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: (probably OT) etymology for fun .. and little else :^)
Date: 14 Oct 2002 23:03:26 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 22:12, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > A violation does not constitute violence. by that
> > line, all violations
> > are therefore violence. The words may share the same
> > first four letters,
> > but that does not mean they are related or similar,
> > or synonyms.
>
> Actually the words "violate" and "violent" *are*
> related. My dictionary on word origins has this
> information about the word "violate":
>
> [Its first recorded appearance in the English language
> was the 15th century.]
>
> Latin _violare_ 'treat with violence' was derived from
> the noun _vis_ 'force, energy' (whose accusative form,
> _vim_, is probably the source of English _vim_). Its
> past participle gave English _violate_, while it's
> present participle is ultimately responsible for
> English _violent_.

We all know the English never miss an opportunity to screw up a good
language or opportunity. ;^)

Careful, Frank might accuse you of milking the mouse now. Oh, wait, you
are not sitting opposite the table from him, never mind. ;)

They may share a common root from a few millenia or so ago, yet not be
related in today's usage. Note, that I did not say that they could not
be, just that by sharing letters it does not mean they are related,
similar, or synonyms, which is how Frank is using them.

> Certainly the historical connection between the words
> offers support for those of us who think in practice
> there is a connection between "violence" and
> "violations."

Mayhaps, but not terribly useful. There are an awful lot of variations
in root origins (referenced in your quote as "probably". That said,
etymology is incredible fun! :^)

And more often than not nothing more than fun :(

For example:
Latin "VIM": Ebullient vitality and energy. See synonyms at vigor
Looking at vigor we see that it descends from
weg: To be strong, be lively.

And regarding violare, the referenced quote is not consistent with the
usage of the term when it was "current". Violatores were those who
committed violare ("to injure, invade, profane, outrage.").
Specifically, for example, one who bombed a church or killed a priest
was to commit violare, as was one who slandered the church. However,
those who wrote against the teachings of the church were not committing
violare.

The Old Latin "violentus" meant "vehement".

Violent comes from violentus, which is not violare. So, the difference
between the two began far before any of us were born. ;)

Interesting is that violence is of Old *French* origin, coming out of
old germanic *waithanjan, to hunt or plunder. So the words violent and
violence don't even share the same origins!

See, fun, but not much else. :)
(However, if you are in to tracing ancient civilizations and migration
patterns of ancient earth, then etymology can be a powerful -- no very
powerful -- tool :)

Anyway, please forgive me for the straying off topic. :^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:12:39 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Nice to see you writing once again.

Thank you for saying so.

I resubscribed recently. At the time of the changeover,
I tried to subscribe but failed. But, now I am back
with a vengence.

> So, what do you suspect is the true measure of "people of principle"?
> Are you "sometimes" a hypocrite yourself, and would you admit it if
> you were? I'll admit I am sometimes. Do YOU always live a consistent
> life, according to your own principles? I know sometimes *I* don't!
> So, all I am saying is that you may be expecting too much. If you
> can't do it always, why do you believe others should always measure
> up to such standards?

I have goals for myself and I will gladly admit that I do not
always meet them.

I will admit to being a failure on occasion. However, I would
tend to see hypocrisy as less common than other failures.

Maybe I am a dreamer but I want to see honest politics.

Regards
Tim

Midnight on the Firing Line
Sinclair: The best way to understand someone is to fight him,
make him angry. That's when you see the real person

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:51:47 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Absolutely marvellous to see you back once again, in spite of some of
our frequent misunderstandings. Really happy to see you back onboard
once again!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I resubscribed recently. At the time of the changeover,
> I tried to subscribe but failed. But, now I am back
> with a vengence.

I don't believe you are the only one either. About 40% or so got
washed out in the transfer to immosys. I'm wondering now if the trip
was really worth all the effort. "With a vengeance!". Now we can
see, but I doubt you'll be disappointed with the current
conversations.

> I have goals for myself and I will gladly admit that I do not
> always meet them.
> I will admit to being a failure on occasion. However, I would
> tend to see hypocrisy as less common than other failures.

Well, it may surprise you to know, that I know that *I* am a
hypocrite. Hell, we all are! Anyone who says that they are not is a
liar, and such commentary should be suspect.

> Maybe I am a dreamer but I want to see honest politics.

Well, let me just say simply this. I've been around long enough to
know that most libertarians are playing the same political games. I'm
talking about those of us who really do call ourselves "Libertarians".
Honestly, "honesty" is not always a favoured virtue unfortunately. I
wish sometimes that it were. Often I do. But if you extrapolate this
out further, you recognize that "politics" is a very dirty business.
Honesty, is rarely a metaphor that can be employed in the dynamics of
achieving political power.

I guess, sometimes (often really), I have this vision of simply going
back home to my own house in north Idaho. Forgetting entirely about
politics, and just trying to live my life in peace and being left
alone to do that. Unfortunately, such visions are always interrupted
by guess what? Politicians, phoney promises, platitudes, and wishing
to take whatever my choices might be, away from me! There is no
escape. That's really why I am a Libertarian with the capital "L".

It wish it wasn't so, but it is, Libertarians play word games, and a
lot of other stupid games with each other! I don't have any idea
really how we expect to lead anyone toward liberty anymore. Those of
us who "should" know better, seem to be the last ones to lead in
directions that will ever promote libertarian idealism. That's my
frustration in all of this. The Fascists and Socialists don't seem to
have such problems, or at least I haven't seen anything resembling
what is going on right now within circumspect "libertarian circles".

My hope is that Liberty Northwest won't become just another waste of
time. I am really glad you are here, as I am with everyone. I just
hope you will not be disappointed. I hope we can really talk about
things in such a way that can bring back a spirit of libertarian
idealism. Unfortunately, even that definition seems to be in a vacuum
at the moment.

And, I certainly don't have all the answers either. I wish I did.

Anyway, welcome back, for what it's worth!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:05:38 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Well, let me just say simply this. I've been around long enough to
> know that most libertarians are playing the same political games. I'm

You say "most". Does that include the current libertarian
party leadership?

> talking about those of us who really do call ourselves
> "Libertarians". Honestly, "honesty" is not always a favoured virtue
> unfortunately. I
> wish sometimes that it were. Often I do. But if you extrapolate this
> out further, you recognize that "politics" is a very dirty business.
> Honesty is rarely a metaphor that can be employed in the dynamics of
> achieving political power.

Well, I would like to discuss this further if you have the time.

Those politicians who can be honest have a certain
credibility that others do not.
Honest and well-thought-out criticism of people like
President Bush can play a part in the political debate
it would seem to me. Would you say I am missing
something?

Honesty can be part of the antidote to political
dogmatism.

I think honesty can then be linked to courage. To expose
one's ideas to constructive criticism is a courageous
act.

If a man wishes to be reputable, he has to move away
from those things which are disreputable. One important
step is honest recognition of the way things are.

Did you ever see the episode of The West Wing where
Josh was required to admit that he deliberately
cut himself?

Regards
Tim

Into the Fire
Sheridan: Oh, it doesn't matter which side wins this
today. A thousand years from now it'll start all
over again

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: 15 Oct 2002 10:32:15 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 09:51, Frank Reichert wrote:

> > I have goals for myself and I will gladly admit that I do not
> > always meet them.
> > I will admit to being a failure on occasion. However, I would
> > tend to see hypocrisy as less common than other failures.
>
> Well, it may surprise you to know, that I know that *I* am a
> hypocrite. Hell, we all are! Anyone who says that they are not is a
> liar, and such commentary should be suspect.

Maybe this isn't what you mean, Frank, but IMO, one has to consciously
be a hypocrite. I don't think many people are a hypocrite, but
unknowingly adopt hypocritical positions or stands.

> It wish it wasn't so, but it is, Libertarians play word games, and a
> lot of other stupid games with each other! I don't have any idea
> really how we expect to lead anyone toward liberty anymore. Those of
> us who "should" know better, seem to be the last ones to lead in
> directions that will ever promote libertarian idealism. That's my
> frustration in all of this. The Fascists and Socialists don't seem to
> have such problems, or at least I haven't seen anything resembling
> what is going on right now within circumspect "libertarian circles".

Do you move within those circles? If not, then I'd expect not to see
what goes on there. I don't but have had friends on occasion that do.
They found it quite vitriolic there as well. If you look at their
history, you'll find them at each other's throats, however.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:01:22 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in small part:

> It wish it wasn't so, but it is, Libertarians play word games, and a
> lot of other stupid games with each other! I don't have any idea
> really how we expect to lead anyone toward liberty anymore. Those of
> us who "should" know better, seem to be the last ones to lead in
> directions that will ever promote libertarian idealism. That's my
> frustration in all of this. The Fascists and Socialists don't seem to
> have such problems, or at least I haven't seen anything resembling
> what is going on right now within circumspect "libertarian circles".

Fascists and socialists have always been notoriously fractious and hard
to organize. Usually it's taken a charismatic leader.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:21:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Sorry, we're speaking from vary different time zones. And so, the
delay in getting back to you. My apologies.

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Well, let me just say simply this. I've been around long enough to
> > know that most libertarians are playing the same political games. I'm

And, you replied:
> You say "most". Does that include the current libertarian
> party leadership?

Not necessarily, or not now at least in my opinion. I believe that for
the most part the official "LP Press Releases" accurately give an
accurate account of what is generally acceptable to the Libertarian
Party at large. In the current US election year (2002) there is no
Presidential race, so we don't have one party standard bearer who
takes the spotlight as we did two years ago. As far as the current
party leadership is concerned however, I think it is much better in
many respects than it was two years ago (at least at the national
level).

Last time, I wrote:
> > talking about those of us who really do call ourselves
> > "Libertarians". Honestly, "honesty" is not always a favoured virtue
> > unfortunately. I
> > wish sometimes that it were. Often I do. But if you extrapolate this
> > out further, you recognize that "politics" is a very dirty business.
> > Honesty is rarely a metaphor that can be employed in the dynamics of
> > achieving political power.

And again, you replied:
> Well, I would like to discuss this further if you have the time.

I've got all the time in the world, and I think this would be a
productive topic to pursue. I guess some of this might be focused
upon what the official LP really releases as news, and the underlying
motives for making certain priorities more important than others,
vis-a-vis, the huge emphasis place on the 'war on drugs' versus the
'war on terror' (both in my opinion equal evils). But one certainly
has priority in emphasis over the other. I believe the LP places far
too much emphasis in opposing the 'war on drugs' to the detriment of
placing the most critical inquiry on current US foreign policy and the
'war on terror'! Both wars obviously have the effect of diminishing
our liberty, although certainly ONLY one of the wars, the 'war on
terror' is doing it in tandem effectively with fear of physically
attacks!

Just in the last week, we've seen 'terrorist' attacks in Kuwait,
against the French oil tanker, and especially on the Indonesian island
of Bali! Meanwhile, many, if not most, libertarians dwell upon the
'war on drugs' as a defining principle.

> Those politicians who can be honest have a certain
> credibility that others do not.
> Honest and well-thought-out criticism of people like
> President Bush can play a part in the political debate
> it would seem to me. Would you say I am missing
> something?

Maybe that's part of the problem. Is Tony Blair honest? I'm putting
this in your own home court right now, admittedly. But the same holds
true with The Shrub<tm> regime, that is, George W. Bush. Most
Americans seem to believe GW is honest! I don't really know if MOST
Britons believe Tony Blair is entirely honest in all of this. That's
your call. I DO however see any US/British bi-partisan attack upon
Iraq as a total disaster if based on the 'war on terror' and the
necessity to initiate force against Iraq in the face of world opinion,
particularly the Islamic world's opinion. It will likely be seen as
an act of aggression and further exacerbate the increase of terrorism
as we are now seeing.

> Honesty can be part of the antidote to political
> dogmatism.

Maybe so. And I would like to see a lot more honesty, rather than
political posturing taking place than what is happening right now.

> I think honesty can then be linked to courage. To expose
> one's ideas to constructive criticism is a courageous
> act.

It might be, but often I've noticed it has more to do with political
posturing. Hardly anything I might call "courageous" anyway. Consider
the last couple of months alone, in a US election year no less. Why
did the Democrats really give GW BUSH the go ahead to proceed with the
use of military force against Iraq! Mainly because it was politically
expedient! The Democrats didn't want to be perceived as being
"anti-American", which will, by the way, because a number one topic to
be avoided in this election year! But it does not address the real
issue at all! In fact a lot of issues. If you just noticed on BBC,
Iraqis are not impressed, and they are generally ready to go to war
against the aggressors for the sake of their own President and
country! You have to know, this isn't going to be what we American
say is a "cake walk"! We are attempting now to legalize aggression
against those who hate us for what we are doing. That hatred is very
real, and it is growing.

So, "honesty" you say is important! I believe it is too. I just
don't happen to trust that very much "honesty" is involved in such
decisions. There is no courage either, since this is merely a delusion
and a tremendous mistake of gigantic proportions.

> If a man wishes to be reputable, he has to move away
> from those things which are disreputable. One important
> step is honest recognition of the way things are.

So. What are they? Maybe the "way things are" aren't really the way
things are for most on the planet. Just maybe the "way things are" are
a figment of your own mind, the way YOU believe things ought to be.
Or, even MY mind? We're not dealing anymore with a "mind", but a
consensus of "minds" in the plural sense. The first assumes autocracy,
the second reason and many minds.

Yes. The US government has problems. A lot of problems. The US
government isn't going to solve the problem either until and at such a
time is it examines it's own sins and mistakes in decades of foreign
policy blunders. I am speaking from on the other side of the Atlantic,
actually tonight from the other side of the Pacific (in the
Philippines). Nevertheless, US foreign policy is largely responsible
for 9/11 and all of what takes place in the aftermath, including the
last few days of accelerated attacks on a global scale.

> Did you ever see the episode of The West Wing where
> Josh was required to admit that he deliberately
> cut himself?

It's available here in the Philippines, but NO, I don't watch it very
much since it is largely self-depicted fiction. Did YOU watch the
blockbuster Mel Gibson movie: "THE PATRIOT"? That's one of my very
favourites to this day! It still is. If you've seen it, watch it
again, and again, and again. It's a loaded movie, with a lot of
current antidotes! I think Mel Gibson was trying hard to "send a
message", and a good one in a lot of his movies, including "BRAVE
HEART".

Maybe all I'm really saying is there is "philosophy", and philosophy
may be the defining word here. Yes, as you noted, honesty and
character certainly come into play in all of this, but that means
nothing at all when men, or women of character have nothing to
contribute except dishonesty to gain personal control.

Thanks Tim for a great message, one that I am very glad (for a change)
to respond to!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:57:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Fascists and socialists have always been notoriously fractious and hard
> to organize. Usually it's taken a charismatic leader.

Such as?

George W. Bush and the "team" he has assembled to mesmerize the
general public?

I noticed during the last couple of days that guns are finally back on
the agenda once AGAIN, as the news media's emphasis shifts to the
"serial sniper", and the need to register the "fingerprints" of fired
bullet casings. As of last night, according to CBS news, Bush is
"considering" the arguments that all guns be test fired before
purchase, with bullet samples being provided to a national registry on
a national data base!

I'm not so sure Bush passes the test as a "charismatic leader", as
such, but with the help of the national hysteria over 9/11 and other
"safety issues" such as the current "serial sniper" and it appears at
least the majority of Americans seems to be leaning on supporting a
growing fascism. Whoops! Yea, according to many, I just used the
wrong word... again! I wonder why I keep doing that? Maybe because I
have at least studied history long enough to wonder who this all might
have happened decades before, such as the 1930s and 40s, and
oftentimes since -- including just maybe NOW!

Okay look. In and around Washington, DC, we've had 9 people killed
and a couple wounded in sniper attacks. Just because this may be
happening in and around the nation's capital to me at least, suggests
that political issues may be the motive. Maybe, maybe not. I don't
know. All I would suggest is if this was occurring in Portland,
Oregon, or Seattle, Washington, it likely would NOT be politically
motivated.

This might suggest to ME, that the last thing Bush should be
considering is registering (back door fashion) the guns of Americans
who are the first and last line of defence against any terrorist
attack. Do we need to track down and apprehend who might be behind
these attacks? Absolutely. Do we need to deny individuals there
absolute right to arm and defend themselves? Also even more
absolutely! The question here, at least in terms of national
security, is rather should such be on any government data base at
all? To me, at least, this itself is a breach of security.

Here's my take on the "serial sniper". He is open season by any and
ALL Americans at any time and at any place. I wonder if people had
guns in these shopping malls and other targeted areas, if this guy
could get by with this very long. Particularly in the last shoot, I
wonder what would happen if "Joe Blow" reached under his seat and
pursued the vehicle, and had a CB radio to monitor his presence and
report it to the police, could have ended this nightmare once and for
all?

I don't usually say this. But I am usually armed when I am home (in
the USA) and driving around with a loaded 380 auto pistol under the
seat of my car (or truck). If I would ever witness such a crime at the
local K-Mart and see the vehicle leaving the parking lot, I feel
confident that I would certainly pursue and radio my presence in to
whoever might be listening on CB Channel 9 (the emergency channel)!
And, I'm just a citizen with no credentials at all on ANY police unit
or force.

We have 270 million such citizens, generally unarmed, many of which
could solve this crime long before any police ever arrive on the crime
scene! Not always of course. But it seems to me, The Shrub Regime<tm>
is more intent upon using this horror story for bolstering gun
registration, and increasing the idea of decreasing individual's right
for self-defence, for the sake of political gain!

Maybe Americans now need to consider the merits of installing CB
radios in their cars, and carrying loaded firearms when they travel,
go to shop, or gas up the car! That OUGHT to be the message today!
Sadly that's the one message we don't seem to be getting.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:03:46 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

[about The West Wing]
> It's available here in the Philippines, but NO, I don't watch it very
> much since it is largely self-depicted fiction. Did YOU watch the
> blockbuster Mel Gibson movie: "THE PATRIOT"? That's one of my very
> favourites to this day! It still is. If you've seen it, watch it
> again, and again, and again. It's a loaded movie, with a lot of
> current antidotes! I think Mel Gibson was trying hard to "send a
> message", and a good one in a lot of his movies, including "BRAVE
> HEART".

No, I have not seen The Patriot.

I must remember to watch out for it when it comes on TV here.
Thanks for the tip.

I have seen Braveheart, the 1995 movie but I did not take
much away from it except the message to fight for what
you believe in.

Oh, I wanted to respond a bit more to this from a previous
message

> And, I certainly don't have all the answers either. I wish I did.

Well, I guess everyone has answers. The trouble is that
not all answers are the same.

Some place their faith in a God that they cannot seem
to produce.

I am more interested in those answers that seem to survive
scrutiny.

Many people on the internet seem only interested in putting
forward their views as truth that all must except and
lash out when criticisms are suggested.

In discussion forums, it is difficult to know who would
welcome critical questioning and who just wants to speak.
It is not always easy to tell them apart.

I welcome questions. If anyone wants to repost
any questions that I have left unanswered from the past,
then that is fine by me.

Michelle seemed to fault both Robert and Bill for being
critical. However, in politics, we have a debate about
issues. The best ideas (hopefully) can be seen from
the debate.

So, I would not fault Robert or Bill for having
queries and doubts as part of that debate.

It would be different if Michelle said that she did not
want feedback. If Robert or Bill ignored such a desire
and continued to ask questions of her (rather than the
list), then I might find that less understandable.

But I do not recall Robert or Bill doing that.

What are your feelings about answering questions,
Frank? You seem to be less relaxed than some about
answering tricky definitional questions.

Regards
Tim

Ben-Hur
Messala: You live on dead dreams. You live on the myths of the past.
The glory of Soloman is gone. Do you think it will return?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: 18 Oct 2002 11:50:59 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 06:57, Frank Reichert wrote:

> Okay look. In and around Washington, DC, we've had 9 people killed
> and a couple wounded in sniper attacks. Just because this may be
> happening in and around the nation's capital to me at least, suggests
> that political issues may be the motive. Maybe, maybe not. I don't
> know. All I would suggest is if this was occurring in Portland,
> Oregon, or Seattle, Washington, it likely would NOT be politically
> motivated.

Here is my take on this pair of murderers. That should be the first
clue. I will *not* call these nut cases "snipers" or a "sniper team".
They are wannabes, nothing more. The shots are pathetically simple to
make. Twenty-five yards is nothing, people! Yes, I believe it is more
than one person. Don't call him/them/her a sniper, they are not acting
like snipers (snipers are a helluva lot more than people who can pick a
playing card out of your hand at 1000 yards, they are primarily
intelligence gathering units). If it were someone who were trained as a
sniper, even partially, they'd be doing these shots at a helluva lot
more than 25 measly yards. And the total would be 11.

Yes, I admit I am personally biased in this case, since I grew up with,
and know to this day *real* snipers, and was trained in it myself
(though I was *not* one!). The media wants something sensational, so
they call them/him/her a sniper to get the attention of the viewers.

And yes, I agree with you, Frank, that if we were "allowed" to be
properly armed, these sickos would have been taken down already.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 21:31:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Here is my take on this pair of murderers. That should be the first
> clue. I will *not* call these nut cases "snipers" or a "sniper team".
> They are wannabes, nothing more. The shots are pathetically simple to
> make.

Maybe so. But ballistic tests seem to indicate they were fired from
the same weapon, or so it seems.

> And yes, I agree with you, Frank, that if we were "allowed" to be
> properly armed, these sickos would have been taken down already.

I'm not ruling out much of anything on this one. I really know myself
at least, and what I would certainly do if I witnessed such a crime
taking place, at say, K-Mart in Sandpoint, Idaho. Enough said. I'd be
hard on his ass until the fucker either shot me, or the police arrived
as a result of my communication in the pursuit.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 9/11 Revisited
Date: 20 Oct 2002 15:26:48 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 07:31, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Here is my take on this pair of murderers. That should be the first
> > clue. I will *not* call these nut cases "snipers" or a "sniper team".
> > They are wannabes, nothing more. The shots are pathetically simple to
> > make.
>
> Maybe so. But ballistic tests seem to indicate they were fired from
> the same weapon, or so it seems.

So what?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Informants for the Selective Service
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:23:28 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: October 15, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Law forcing schools to share student data
with Selective Service should be scrapped, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new law that requires public schools to turn over
student information to military recruiters should be scrapped,
Libertarians say, because educators shouldn't have to cooperate in
sending their students off to get killed in senseless foreign wars.

"Apparently the government believes the three R's should stand for
reading, writing - and recruiting," said George Getz, Libertarian
Party
communications director. "Schools are supposed to be supplying an
education to their students, not supplying their students to the armed
forces."

A little-noticed amendment to the elementary and secondary education
funding bill signed earlier this year by President Bush requires
public
high schools to turn over students' names, addresses, and telephone
numbers to military recruiters. The measure, which has already sparked
opposition in New York and other cities, is designed to help the
Selective Service track down 18-year-old males who have neglected to
register for the draft as required by federal law.

But Libertarians say the government has no business deputizing
school administrators to act as agents for the Selective Service.

"The fact that some students fail to comply with a federal regulation
shouldn't obligate schools to violate the privacy of all students,"
Getz said. "The Selective Service should have no more right to demand
student records without a warrant than does the IRS, the DEA, or any
other government agency.

"Besides, teachers' first obligation should be to educate and protect
their students, not make it easier for the government to launch
another
Vietnam-style draft."

The law was prompted by complaints by the Selective Service that
compliance with draft registration has been falling, and has plunged
to
49 percent in some urban areas like New York, Getz noted.

"Americans should think about why so many youths are refusing to
register," he said. "Maybe they've learned that the draft has been
used as a tool to wage senseless wars that the public rightly opposed,
such as Vietnam and Korea. Maybe inner-city students are especially
aware that while governments launch wars, minorities always seem to
end
up leading the charge into battle.

"And how can students fail to notice that presidents have a habit of
sending Americans to fight in places totally unrelated to U.S.
national
security, like Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, and Iraq?

"No wonder so many students are reluctant to register: They don't want
to die defending someone else's country."

History shows that a draft has never been needed to defend the USA,
Libertarians note.

"Anytime this nation was actually attacked, as it was at Pearl
Harbor and on September 11, Americans rushed to volunteer for military
service," Getz said. "It's only when U.S. national security is not at
stake that politicians turn to coercion and conscription.

"If the government wants to ensure that Americans will always be eager
to defend their country, it doesn't have to turn teachers into
informants for the Selective Service. All it has to do is adopt a
truly
defensive foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Censorship In Paradise: New Zealand Thought Police Seize Books From Loompanics
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:37:44 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Tinnin" <krinklyfig@myrealbox.com>
To: <drctalk@drcnet.org>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Censorship In Paradise: New Zealand Thought Police Seize Books
>From Loompanics

> http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/nz_books_seized.htm
>
> http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/CensorshipInParadise.html
>
> Censorship In Paradise: New Zealand Thought Police Seize Books From
> Loompanics, by Russ Kick
>
> In 1997, Loompanics published The New Zealand Immigration Guide, which
spoke
> very highly of the beautiful, secluded island-nation. Apparently, New
> Zealand will not be returning the compliment.
>
> The government of New Zealand has decided that publications from
Loompanics
> are not welcome in the country, and it's currently persecuting a
married
> couple for the "crime" of ordering some books. The government of New
Zealand
> has decided that publications from Loompanics are not welcome in the
> country, and it's currently persecuting a married couple for the
"crime" of
> ordering some books.
>
> New Zealand has a lot of things going for it. Located southeast of
> Australia, it enjoys a temperate climate and by all accounts, is one
of the
> most gorgeous spots on earth. Comprised of two main islands and some
smaller
> ones, it's total land area is about equal to Colorado, with 9,400
miles of
> coast. The population is approximately 3.9 million, with a stunning 99
> percent literacy rate. Its economy is robust, and military spending is
only
> 1.1 percent of the GDP (the figure for the U.S. is 3.2 percent). New
Zealand
> pretty much keeps to itself. You don't hear very much about it, with
the
> major exceptions of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Russell
Crowe,
> both products of this other land down under. For someone looking to
get away
> from it all, New Zealand is pretty tempting.
>
> Except for one thing. It doesn't have a great track record when it
comes to
> civil liberties for its citizens. This isn't too surprising,
considering
> that, like Canada, New Zealand used to be a part of the British
Empire. (Not
> that the U.S. is anywhere close to perfect, but at least we have
recourse
> and codified protections.) It declared independence in 1907 and now
has
> a parliamentary democracy, but its people are still subject to
national
> controls that would be (and are) fought against in the US.
>
> Many types of guns are legal, but strict licensing is the law. Movies
must
> be approved by a government body before they can be released. Books
aren't
> subject to that level of suppression, but the situation is still ugly.
You
> see, New Zealand has a governmental agency called the Office of Film
and
> Literature Classification, created by a 1993 law which unified the
previous
> three agencies in charge of suppressing various media. Although the
Office's
> name is classic Orwellian doublespeak, the title of the agency's head
is
> hilariously forthright: Chief Censor of Film and Literature. That
position
> is currently held by a lawyer from (where else?) Canada.
>
> The Office leaves no stone unturned in its search for deviance and
> subversion: Among the media it "classifies" are "films, videos,
magazines,
> computer discs, video games, CD-ROMs, printed clothing [e.g.,
tee-shirts],
> posters, sound recordings and playing cards." According to the
agency's
> Website:
>
> "Each time the Classification Office makes a classification decision
it must
> consider whether the availability of that particular publication is
likely
> to be injurious to the public good. In doing so, the Classification
Office
> must also consider the dominant effect of the whole publication,
impact of
> the medium of the publication, character of the publication, intended
> audience for the publication, purpose of the publication. Under the
> Classification Act, the Classification Office is deemed to exercise
expert
> judgment when making these decisions."
>
> The criteria used by the Office to ban material include "acts of
torture,"
> "sexual violence or sexual coercion," "sexual conduct with or by
children,"
> and "promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism." Some
of the
> most ominous no-nos are:
>
> "degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person" and
>
> "represents that members of any particular class of the public are
> inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any
> characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is
> a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights
Act
> 1993."
>
> Moving images (i.e., movies and video games) are the only form of
media that
> must be viewed, judged, and labeled before being (hopefully) released
to the
> public. All others can be released without passing through the
censorship
> process, although the Office warns: "However, these publications must
still
> comply with the law. In this case, the onus of responsibility rests on
the
> person who intends to supply a publication to ensure that he or she is
> supplying it appropriately. As one option, a person can choose to
submit the
> publication for classification" [emphasis mine].
>
> In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Or, in this case, a book
is
> assumed to be objectionable until the publisher or bookseller can
prove that
> it's safe for the populace. Although written material doesn't have to
be
> classified before being released, any government body or private
citizen can
> request that a publication be reviewed. Many retailers try to avoid
hassles
> by labeling their books in advance, which usually involves putting
warning
> stickers on them (much like the music industry "voluntarily" does with
> records in the U.S.).
>
> During the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Office banned four books. It
also
> classified four others, five magazines, and one booklet as R18,
meaning that
> no one under 18 may buy, possess, or even look at them. The number of
books
> banned undoubtedly will be higher in 2001-2 fiscal year, if the case
of John
> and Daniela Setters is any indication.
>
> Married Couple Raided for Books
>
> The Setters are a married couple living in Mount Maunganui, a town of
about
> 14,000 people located on the coast of northern New Zealand. Through
the
> Websites of Loompanics www.loompanics.com and the Dope Fiends.com
Bookshop
> www.dopefiends.com, they ordered several books on drugs. Their first
two
> orders ­ one from each bookseller ­ made it to them unscathed.
>
> Their third, fateful order was to Loompanics for Psychedelic Chemistry
by
> Michael Valentine Smith. But that package isn't what showed up on
their
> doorstep. On February 1, 2002, at 6:30 in the morning, five Customs
officers
> climbed the front gate and pounded on the Setters' door. Once inside,
the
> kiwi feds searched the place. "When we asked what was the reason for
the
> search warrant," John says, "the one in charge asked us if we knew a
company
> called 'Loompanics' (apparently well known by New Zealand Customs) and
> mentioned the book Psychedelic Chemistry, ordered in my name, as the
cause
> for the raid."
>
> The agents seized the following books from the Setters:
>
> The Big Book of Buds: Marijuana Varieties From the World's Great Seed
> Breeders by Ed Rosenthal (Quick American Archives) The Big Book of
Secret
> Hiding Places by Jack Luger (Breakout Productions)
>
> The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories by
Jack B.
> Nimble (Loompanics)
>
> Magic Mushrooms Around the World: A Scientific Journey Across Cultures
and
> Time by Jochen Gartz (Luna Information Services)
>
> Opium for the Masses by Jim Hogshire (Loompanics)
>
> Peyote: And Other Psychoactive Cacti by Adam Gottlieb (Ronin
Publishing)
>
> Psilocybin: Magic Mushroom Grower's Guide by O.T. Oss and O.N. Oeric
(Quick
> American Archives)
>
> Aside from Psilocybin, none of these books has been classified by the
Chief
> Censor, but the Customs agents considered them "likely to be
objectionable."
> This was obviously enough to justify the seizure of these books and
> harassment of the Setters. The agents also snatched some issues of
Cannabis
> Culture magazine, which is legal, surprisingly enough; a vaporizer, a
device
> for inhaling the active compounds from "herbs"; the Setters' laptop
> computer; and three pot plants, which were basically treated as no big
deal.
> For possession of cannabis, John paid a mere $350 fine (that's New
Zealand
> dollars; in US currency, the fine was $155). It would appear that the
> Setters are in much more trouble with the State for the books they
read than
> for the marijuana they owned. (Interesting side note: Although the
> authorities seized three pot plants, Daniela says that when the
evidence was
> presented in court, it had mysteriously shrunk to two plants. This
commonly
> happens to drugs that are seized.)
>
> The feds kept the Setters' computer for a month, rifling its hard
drive for
> more forbidden info. They undoubtedly never would've given it back had
the
> Setters not hired one of the country's top lawyers, Paul Mabey, to
handle
> the matter. Revealing a staggering lack of work duties, rather than
being
> shipped via UPS, the computer was returned by the agent in charge of
the
> operation, who had to drive seven hours from Auckland to deliver the
laptop.
> The round trip obviously took two entire work days, but Customs
inspectors
> appear to have a lot of time on their hands. Daniela reports that when
she
> asked if she and John were actually going to be prosecuted over some
books,
> the agent said, "Well, since we had to come all the way out here...."
>
> Singled out as particularly "disturbing and dangerous" was How To
Steal Food
> >From the Supermarket. But the fun didn't end there. For two months
after the
> raid, the authorities opened all of the Setters' mail from overseas,
seizing
> none other than the Loompanics catalog itself. Daniela and John were
told
> that the catalog "contains some books that are 'objectionable'."
Singled out
> as particularly "disturbing and dangerous" was How to Steal Food in
the
> Supermarket by J. Andrew Anderson (Loompanics).
>
> As Daniela sums up their unfortunate lesson in government power: "We
thought
> such deprivation of freedom of information only still occurs in
communist,
> Muslim, and Third World countries, but we were so bloody wrong!"
>
> What Next?
>
> As this article goes to press, John is waiting to hear from the
Customs
> agency. When they get around to it, they'll demand that he show up at
the
> time and place of their choosing and answer all questions to their
> "satisfaction." He has no right to remain silent or otherwise avoid
possible
> self- incrimination.
>
> Afterwards, the government will decide whether to press charges. If
they
> prosecute, John is looking at a $2,000 fine (U.S. $893) per book. This
could
> result in a grand total of U.S. $7,144 for the eight books. It could
be U.S.
> $8,037 if they nail him for the Loompanics catalog, too.
>
> Perhaps John should be thankful that he only bought the books, rather
than
> sold them. Under kiwi law, people involved in the commercial trade of
> "objectionable" books face not only the fines but also one year in
prison
> for each book sold. I think we can safely guess one country where Mike
Hoy,
> Gia Cosindas, and the rest of the Loompanics crew will not be moving
anytime
> soon.
>
> Perhaps John should be thankful that he only bought the books, rather
than
> sold them. Under kiwi law, people involved in the commercial trade of
> "objectionable" books face not only the fines but also one year in
prison
> for each book sold.
>
> Upside Down in More Ways Than One Let's emphasize one of the lessons
we've
> learned about New Zealand: If you get caught with three marijuana
plants,
> you will pay a $350 fine. If you get caught with three books about
> marijuana, you will pay a $6,000 fine. Kiwi tokers, if they're
prudent, may
> want to stick to just smoking the stuff rather than reading about it.
>
> The Thought Police in New Zealand have their heads up their asses. No
matter
> how balmy and beautiful the locale, this is the preferred position for
all
> censors. As if all this weren't twisted enough, it should be noted
that
> although the magazines High Times, Cannabis Culture, and Heads are all
> legally on sale in New Zealand, books about illegal drugs are
verboten. (It
> was through ads in these magazines that the Setters found out about
> Loompanics and Dope Fiends.) This is a bizarre switch, since books
typically
> enjoy more free-speech protection than periodicals. It's more proof
that,
> like their brethren elsewhere, the Thought Police in New Zealand have
their
> heads up their asses. No matter how balmy and beautiful the locale,
this is
> the preferred position for all censors.
>
> Russ Kick is the editor of Everything You Know Is Wrong, You Are Being
Lied
> To, and other books.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Globalisms War
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:08:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again everyone!

Here's a really profound message, and a timely one too since The Shrub
Regime<tm> has already signed the Congressional resolution authorizing the
use of force against Iraq.

I've noticed there is a gradual pick up in the number of protests taking
place against the initiation of force in a war against Iraq, and that is at
least a hopeful sign. The following message, just received via the Militia
of Montana, alludes to a previous time 3 decades ago in another illegitimate
"war" we conducted in Southeast Asia to our own peril.

However, due to the size and scope of this new "war", the impact against the
US, if not the western world, may become infinitely greater than the follies
of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. How soon we forget the mistakes
of the past!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Globalisms War
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:11:03 -0600
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

GLOBALISM'S WAR FOR DOMINATION
HISTORY REPEATS FOR THE LAST TIME?
By: SARTRE
Published in the October 21, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.

Some of us were there during the struggle to stop the war in another era.
How quickly our
fellow neighbors forget what the struggle over Viet Nam was all about. For
those born
after that period of national discontent, the lessons of that conflict seem
to escape them.
By now it should be clear for even the most staunch supporter of that
debacle and tragic
chapter of our history, that the only victory of that combat was the
continual march to
globalize the world community. The canard that the struggle against
Communism was
wholly a battle between good and evil has been exposed as a false choice.
The last
remnants of the righteous; namely the American experiement, that once
gleamed hope for
mankind, dissolved an entire century before that campaign in South East
Asia.

What we have three decades later is an overt merging of the underlying and
discredited
totalitarian collectivism that Marxism represents, with the despotic
democratic socialism
that the United States has adopted. The demise of our own Republic is
complete. The
world community is a euphemism for compliance and control. The principle of
individual
convictions has become the primary enemy for this international cabal of
elites. They cloak
their own version of dictatorship in benign terms, while they consolidate
their global reach
and rule. Humanity faces extinction not from weapons of mass destruction,
but from
surrender to the forces of institutional depravity, that is at the core of
the New World
Order.

Now we have another round in the unabated and continual descent into the
bowels of
pure evil. The U.S. Congress and Senate has crossed its last Rubicon, buried
the
constitution even deeper and marches briskly in lock step to global
government. Only
those who are in total denial will defend that the world requires the
permission of the
beltway oligarchy, the sanctions of wall street plutocrats and the arrogance
of the Mattoids
within the international community. This NWO - is the only real, true and
permanent
enemy. Don't be fooled that Bush seems to be alone for his push for regime
change. The
forces of globalism are always the beneficiary of WAR. Countries may seem to
oppose
U.S. strategy, but few are willing to confront the forces that exert real
political power.
What is at stake is not a path for remedial and paternal generosity as the
proponents of
Pax America want you to belief. The actual purpose of this latest hostility
seeks to destroy
any and all resistance to synthesize the world economy, to administer a
uniformed political
system and to demonstrate the effectiveness of their enforcement capacity.

If you accept and define patriotism to mean love of one's country, why do
you view
government as synonymous with the nation? Is it so difficult to understand
that the
STATE only masquerades as representative of the people, while their actions
are
designed and consistently foster the global agenda? Why would you support,
defend and
advocate superpower status when that concentration of power and reach
results in the
demise of your own personal Liberty? When the popular TV announcement shows
that
terrorism has changed America forever with flags flying from row houses, why
are those
flags not flown inverted? Only American denial would dispute that our own
homegrown
terror resides within the political patricians that claim moral
omnipresence, while their
primary export is coerced compliance to international rule under the
monocrary mantel of
uniformed universal policy.

People obfuscate the essence of the continual struggle. They insist and want
to separate
the U.S. government from the NWO. Their denial is based upon confusion that
our system
and leaders oppose the most hideous designs by the oppressors of the
International
Corporate/State Axis. Their refusal to comprehend that the NWO is a
supranational vision
that requires the subjugation and elimination of the noble American
experiment, is their
fundamental error. Yes, the facts of history provide a clear downward
descent of our
nations adherence to the ideals of 1776. The constant assault upon our
unique attempt
place government under the authority of citizens, has failed because our own
leaders have
deceived for decades, by claiming that they are defenders of our freedoms.
Their record is
one of betrayal and treason. Now we have the latest example, that the
majority of the
public favors our own home grown despots and demand to live and be governed
under
their surrender to world dominion.

The admission of Mayor Richard J Daley rings loud and clear from the grave.
But in
today's society, dissent and resistance to a failed internationalist foreign
policy is rare. The
police of Chicago back in 1968 were innocuous compared to the planetary
reach that
their form of disorder seeks to use over regimes that fall outside the
circle of capitulation.
We are no fan or proponent of Iraq or the Islamic culture or cause. But we
also reject
policies that primarily benefit an Israel First objective or seizure and
mastery over foreign
oil resources. We don't seek isolation from the world, but demand freedom
from
dominance from a world community that is bent on the destruction of our own
beloved
America Nation. When domestic politicians serve the interests of the elites
that foster the
international specter of human enslavement; we will oppose, resist and
disobey their
program.

Don't conclude that we have any respect for the several DemocRATS that voted
against
the Iraq Resolution. The only Democrats that ever received our support were
write in
votes for Eugene McCarthy and George Wallace. Our endorsement embraces the
Pat
Buchanan viewpoint.

This authorization to use force without a clear declaration of war
demonstrates that the
projection of government power is the real objective. Protection of the
homeland is not
increased, but this coming conflict will guarantee an inevitable "blowback".
Regime
change is an argument more properly directed to our own government. Will the
denial of
the apologists for unwarranted aggression 'American Style' make us safe, or
will the smart
bombs just advance the NWO program closer to their ultimate goal, world
citizenship
under the whip of a smiley face tyrant?

If this isn't the factual reality of our age, what do you call the
elimination and extermination
of the countless millions during the last century to the forces of global
domination? If you
still believe that the U.S. policy wears a white hat, you are blinded by the
RED color in the
banner that poses as the county's symbol. We pay homage to the original
thirteen star flag.
One that sought freedom and justice based upon limited government. As long
as you
refuse to see that segment of the enemy - holds reign under the guise of a
fraudulent native
government - the responsibility for terror on our shores will share your
imprint. This
coming war is wrong, immoral and unnecessary. This repeat of history risks
total
conflagration. Are you really so sure you want to support this cause?

http://etherzone.com/2002/sart102102.shtml

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: America's For-Profit Secret Armies
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:17:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Here's another little jewel that walked through the door momentarily ago.

Published October 13th in the New York Times, this article is rare, in that
very little media publicity has surfaced to reveal the extent of mercenary
"for hire" contractors serving as surrogates for the US military in
sensitive areas around the planet. Credit is given to the Militia of
Montana (MOM) for passing this on.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: America's For-Profit Secret Armies
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:19:16 -0600
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>


America's For-Profit Secret Armies

By Leslie Wayne

October 13, 2002;The New York Times

With the war on terror already a year old and the possibility of
war against Iraq growing by the day, a modern version of an ancient
practice - one as old as warfare itself - is reasserting itself at
the Pentagon. Mercenaries, as they were once known, are thriving -
only this time they are called private military contractors, and
some are even subsidiaries of Fortune 500 companies.

The Pentagon cannot go to war without them.

Often run by retired military officers, including three- and four-
star generals, private military contractors are the new business
face of war. Blurring the line between military and civilian, they
provide stand-ins for active soldiers in everything from logistical
support to battlefield training and military advice at home and
abroad.

American taxpayers already pay $300 billion a year to fund the
world's most powerful military. Why should they have to pay a
second time in order to privatize our operations? Are we
outsourcing in order to avoid public scrutiny, controversy or
embarrassment? Is it to hide body bags from the media and thus
shield them from public opinion?

US Rep Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat Some are helping to
conduct training exercises using live ammunition for American
troops in Kuwait, under the code name Desert Spring. One has just
been hired to guard President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the
target of a recent assassination attempt. Another is helping to
write the book on airport security. Others have employees who don
their old uniforms to work under contract as military recruiters
and instructors in R.O.T.C. classes, selecting and training the
next generation of soldiers.

In the darker recesses of the world, private contractors go where
the Pentagon would prefer not to be seen, carrying out military
exercises for the American government, far from Washington's view.
In the last few years, they have sent their employees to Bosnia,
Nigeria, Macedonia, Colombia and other global hot spots.

Motivated as much by profits as politics, these companies - about
35 all told in the United States - need the government's permission
to be in business. A few are somewhat familiar names, like Kellogg
Brown & Root, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Company that operates
for the government in Cuba and Central Asia. Others have more
cryptic names, like DynCorp; Vinnell, a subsidiary of TRW; SAIC;
ICI of Oregon; and Logicon, a unit of Northrop Grumman. One of the
best known, MPRI, boasts of having "more generals per square foot
than in the Pentagon."

During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, one of every 50 people on the
battlefield was an American civilian under contract; by the time of
the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 1996, the figure was one in
10. No one knows for sure how big this secretive industry is, but
some military experts estimate the global market at $100 billion.
As for the public companies that own private military contractors,
they say little if anything about them to shareholders.

"Contractors are indispensible," said John J. Hamre, deputy
secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. "Will there be
more in the future? Yes, and they are not just running the soup
kitchens."

That means even more business, and profits, for contractors who
perform tasks as mundane as maintaining barracks for overseas
troops, as sophisticated as operating weapon systems or as
secretive as intelligence-gathering in Africa. Many function near,
or even at, the front lines, causing concern among military
strategists about their safety and commitment if bullets start to
fly.

The use of military contractors raises other troubling questions as
well. In peace, they can act as a secret army outside of public
view. In war, while providing functions crucial to the combat
effort, they are not soldiers. Private contractors are not
obligated to take orders or to follow military codes of conduct.
Their legal obligation is solely to an employment contract, not to
their country.

Private military contractors are flushing out drug traffickers in
Colombia and turning the rag-tag militias of African nations into
fighting machines. When a United Nations arms embargo restricted
the American military in the Balkans, private military contractors
were sent instead to train the local forces.

At times, the results have been disastrous.

In Bosnia, employees of DynCorp were found to be operating a sex-
slave ring of young women who were held for prostitution after
their passports were confiscated. In Croatia, local forces, trained
by MPRI, used what they learned to conduct one of the worst
episodes of "ethnic cleansing," an event that left more than
100,000 homeless and hundreds dead and resulted in war-crimes
indictments. No employee of either firm has ever been charged in
these incidents.

In Peru last year, a plane carrying an American missionary and her
infant was accidentally shot down when a private military
contractor misidentified it as on a drug smuggling flight.

MPRI, formerly known as Military Professionals Resources Inc., may
provide the best example of how skilled retired soldiers cash in on
their military training. Its roster includes Gen. Carl E. Vuono,
the former Army chief of staff who led the gulf war and the Panama
invasion; Gen. Crosbie E. Saint, the former commander of the United
States Army in Europe; and Gen. Ron Griffith, the former Army vice
chief of staff. There are also dozens of retired top-ranked
generals, an admiral and more than 10,000 former military
personnel, including elite special forces, on call and ready for
assignment.

"We can have 20 qualified people on the Serbian border within 24
hours," said Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, the company's spokesman and
a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The Army
can't do that. But contractors can."

For that, MPRI is paid well. Its revenue exceeds $100 million a
year, mainly from Pentagon and State Department contracts. Retired
military personnel working for MPRI receive two to three times
their Pentagon salaries, in addition to their retirement benefits
and corporate benefits like stock options and 401(k) plans. MPRI's
founders became millionaires in July 2000, when they and about 35
equity holders sold the company for $40 million in cash to L-3
Communications, a military contractor traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.

Within the military, the use of contractors is Defense Department
policy for filling the gaps as the number of troops falls. At the
time of the gulf war, there were 780,000 Army troops; today there
are 480,000. Over the same period, overall military forces have
fallen by 500,000.

Pentagon officials did not respond to many telephone calls and e-
mail messages requesting interviews, but they have maintained that
contractors are a cost-effective way of extending the military's
reach when Congress and the American public are reluctant to pay
for more soldiers.

"The main reason for using a contractor is that it saves you from
having to use troops, so troops can focus on war fighting," said
Col. Thomas W. Sweeney, a professor of strategic logistics at the
Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. "It's cheaper because you only
pay for contractors when you use them."

But one person's cost-saving device can be another's "guns for
hire," as David Hackworth, a former Army colonel and frequent
critic of the military, called them.

"These new mercenaries work for the Defense and State Department
and Congress looks the other way," Colonel Hackworth, a highly
decorated Vietnam veteran, said. "It's a very dangerous situation.
It allows us to get into fights where we would be reluctant to send
the Defense Department or the C.I.A. The American taxpayer is
paying for our own mercenary army, which violates what our founding
fathers said."

They are not mercenaries in the classic sense. Most, but not all,
private military contractors are unarmed, even when they oversee
others with guns. They have even formed a trade group, the
International Peace Operations Association, to promote industry
standards.

"We don't want to risk getting contracts by being called
mercenaries," said Doug Brooks, president of the association. "But
we can do things on short notice and keep our mouths shut."

That, some critics say, is part of the problem. By using for-profit
soldiers, the government, especially the executive branch, can
evade Congressional limits on troop strength. For instance, in
Bosnia, where a cap of 20,000 troops was imposed by Congress, the
addition of 2,000 contractors helped skirt that restriction.

Contractors also allow the administration to carry out foreign
policy goals in low-level skirmishes around the globe ? often
fueled by ethnic hatreds and a surplus of cold war weapons ?
without having to fear the media attention that comes if American
soldiers are sent home in body bags.

At least five DynCorp employees have been killed in Latin America,
with no public outcry. Denial is easier for the government when
those working overseas do not wear uniforms ? they often wear
fatigues or military-looking clothes but not official uniforms.

"If you sent in troops, someone will know; if contractors, they may
not," said Deborah Avant, an associate professor of political
science at George Washington University and author of many studies
on the subject.

Only a few members of Congress have expressed concern about the
phenomenon.

"There are inherent difficulties with the increasing use of
contactors to carry out U.S. foreign policy," said Senator Patrick
J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the foreign
operations subcommittee. "This is especially true when it involves
`private' soldiers who are not as accountable as U.S. military
personnel. Accountability is a serious issue when it comes to
carrying guns or flying helicopters in pursuit of U.S. foreign
policy goals."

In the House, Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat,
led the battle against a Bush administration effort to remove the
cap that limits the number of American troops in Colombia to 500
and private contractors to 300.

"American taxpayers already pay $300 billion a year to fund the
world's most powerful military," Ms. Schakowsky said. "Why should
they have to pay a second time in order to privatize our
operations? Are we outsourcing in order to avoid public scrutiny,
controversy or embarrassment? Is it to hide body bags from the
media and thus shield them from public opinion?"

SUCH concerns are hardly slowing the pace across the Potomac, at
MPRI in Alexandria, Va. The company may look like hundreds of other
white-collar concerns that fill small office buildings in northern
Virginia, but there are telltale signs to the contrary: the sword
that serves as the corporate logo and conference rooms named the
Infantry Room, the Cavalry Room and the Artillery Room. Its art
consists of paintings of celebrated battles, largely from the Civil
War.

It's hard to tell where the United States military ends and MPRI
begins. For the last four years, MPRI has run R.O.T.C. training
programs at more than 200 universities, under a contract that has
allowed retired military to put their uniforms back on. It recently
lost the contract to a lower bidder, but MPRI offset the loss with
one to provide former soldiers to run recruitment offices.

The company, which has 900 full-time employees, helps run the
United States Army Force Management School at Fort Belvoir. It also
provides instructors for advanced training classes at Fort
Leavenworth, teaches the Civil Air Patrol and designs courses at
Fort Sill, Fort Knox, Fort Lee and other military centers.

The Pentagon has even hired MPRI to help it write military doctrine
? including the field manual called "Contractors Support on the
Battlefield" that sets rules for how the Army should interact with
private contractors, like itself.

Overseas, MPRI is, if anything, more active. Under a program it
calls "democracy transition," the company has offered countries
like Nigeria, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Croatia and
Macedonia training in American-style warfare, including war games,
military instruction and weapons training.

In Croatia, MPRI was brought in to provide border monitors in the
early 1990's. Then, in 1994, as the United States grew concerned
about the poor quality of the Croatian forces and their ability to
maintain regional stability, it turned to MPRI. A United Nations
arms embargo in 1991, approved by the United States, prohibited the
sale of weapons or the providing of training to any warring party
in the Balkans. But the Pentagon referred MPRI to Croatia's defense
minister, who hired the company to train its forces.

In 1995, MPRI started doing so, teaching the fledgling army
military tactics that MPRI executives had developed while on active
duty commanding the gulf war invasion. Several months later, armed
with this new training, the Croatian army began Operation Storm,
one of the bloodiest episodes of "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans,
an event that also reshaped the military balance in the region.

The operation drove more than 100,000 Serbs from their homes in a
four-day assault. Investigators for the international war crimes
tribunal in the Hague found that the Croatian army carried out
summary executions and indiscriminately shelled civilians. "In a
widespread and systematic matter, Croatian troops committed murder
and other inhumane acts," investigators said in their report.
Several Croatian generals in charge of the operation have been
indicted for war crimes and are being sought for trial.

"No MPRI employee played a role in planning, monitoring or
assisting in Operation Storm," said Lieutenant General Soyster, the
MPRI spokesman. He did say that a few Croatian graduates of MPRI's
training course participated in the operation.

Yet what happened in Croatia gave MPRI international brand
recognition and more business in that region. When Bosnian Muslims
balked in 1995 at signing the Dayton peace accords out of fear that
their army was ill-equipped to provide sufficient protection, MPRI
was called in.

"The Bosnians said they would not sign unless they had help
building their army," said Peter Singer, a foreign policy fellow at
the Brookings Institution who is writing a book on contractors.
"And they said they wanted the same guys who helped the Croatians."

That is who they got. Under a plan worked out by American
negotiators, the Bosnian Muslims hired MPRI using money that was
provided by a group of Islamic nations, including Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia. These
nations deposited money in the United States Treasury, which MPRI
drew against.

"It was a brilliant move in that the U.S. government got someone
else to pay for what we wanted from a policy standpoint," Mr.
Singer said.

At the moment, MPRI is advertising for special forces for
antiterrorist operations, is bulking up to train American forces in
Kuwait and is looking for people with special skills like basic-
training instruction and counterintelligence. Recently, however, it
lost a $4.3 million contract to provide training to the army in
Colombia when officials there complained about what they called the
poor quality of MPRI's services.

In Africa, MPRI has conducted training programs on security issues
for about 120 African leaders and more than 5,500 African troops.
Most recently, it went toe to toe with the State Department, and
won, gaining permission to do business in Equatorial Guinea, a
country with a deplorable human rights record where the United
States does not have an embassy.

After two years of lobbying at the State Department, and after
being turned down twice on human rights grounds, MPRI was finally
given approval last year to work with President Teodoro Obiang
Nguema, whom the State Department describes as holding power
through torture, fraud and a 98 percent election mandate. MPRI
advised President Obiang on building a coast guard to protect the
oil-rich waters being explored by Exxon Mobil off the coast.

More recently, when MPRI and President Obiang proposed that MPRI
also help the country build its police and military forces, the
State Department objected and the project is now dormant.

"We thought helping the coast guard would be pretty innocuous in
terms of human rights," Lieutenant General Soyster of MPRI said.
But Ms. Avant of George Washington University disagreed, saying any
alliance with United States military contractors would strengthen
President Obiang's power.

MPRI is not the only company to have run into problems overseas.
DynCorp, a privately held company in Reston, Va., with nearly $2
billion in annual sales, has been tapped to provide protection for
Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan. DynCorp also provides worldwide
protective services for State Department employees.

In late September, DynCorp settled charges ? for an undisclosed sum
? brought by a whistle-blower the company had fired after he
complained of a sex ring run by DynCorp employees in Bosnia. In
August, a British court, meanwhile, ruled in favor of another
former DynCorp employee in a separate whistle-blower case. DynCorp
is appealing.

The two employees made similar accusations: that while working in
Bosnia, where DynCorp was providing military equipment maintenance
services, DynCorp employees kept underaged women as sex slaves,
even videotaping a rape. Among the charges was that while the
DynCorp employees trafficked in women ? including buying one for
$1,000 ? the company turned a blind eye. Since the DynCorp
employees involved were not soldiers, their actions were not
subject to military discipline. Nor did they face local justice;
they were simply fired and sent home.

In both cases, after complaining, the two employees who blew the
whistle were fired. Ben Johnston, one of them, said last April in
Congressional testimony: "DynCorp employees were living off post
and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves.
Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the
worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas."

A DynCorp spokesman, Chuck Taylor, said the company "felt horrible"
and held its own internal investigation before firing the employees
who operated the ring.

DynCorp also handles aerial anti-narcotics efforts for the United
States government in the skies over Colombia and nearby countries ?
where several employees have been killed. Because of Congressional
caps on the use of private military contractors, DynCorp has hired
local citizens; two were recently killed.

Still, in its recruiting material, the company plays up the
excitement of this type of work: "Being the best is never easy and
when your office is the cockpit of a twin-engine plane swooping low
over the Colombian jungle, the challenges can often be enormous."

Incidents like these ? sex rings, deals with dictators, misused
military training and tragic accidents ? raise questions about the
use of contractors. To whom are they accountable: the United States
government or their contract? When such incidents occur, who bears
the responsibility?

Moreover, while the general mantra about military privatization is
that it saves money, there are few studies to prove the case ? and
in fact, reports exist to the contrary.

For instance, Kellogg Brown & Root, which was paid $2.2 billion to
provide logistics support to American troops in the Balkans, was
the subject of a General Accounting Office report entitled, "Army
Should Do More to Control Contract Costs in the Balkans." The
office found that the Army was not exercising enough oversight on
Kellogg Brown & Root as contract costs rose, to the benefit of the
company. Still, the company continues to pick up new business.

Questions about security and control are even more basic. In the
battlefield, a commander cannot give orders to a contractor as he
can a soldier. Contractors are not compelled by an oath of office,
as soldiers are, but instead by an employment contract that
provides little flexibility. Nor are contractors subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Contractors cannot arm themselves ? they risk losing their status
as noncombatants if they do and, in the extreme, could be declared
mercenaries and subject to execution if captured. Yet in the gulf
war, contractors were in the thick of battle, providing maintenance
to tanks and biological and chemical vehicles as well as flying air
support.

Should there be a war in Iraq, the line could be even blurrier.

"There are no rear areas anymore," Colonel Sweeney of the Army War
College said. With chemical and biological weapons, "no place is
safe," he said.

"You can't draw a map and say `no contractors forward of this
line,' " he added. "The American concept of combat is to take the
battle to the rear areas and be as disruptive as possible. The
other guy is thinking the same thing."

One tenet of warfare is that soldiers handling support functions
can grab a gun and hit the front lines if needed. While this is
often dismissed as a quaint World War II concept, it happened in
Somalia in 1993 when Army rangers were in trouble and military
supply clerks came to their rescue. When the support staff is
filled with contractors, would they do the same? Or would
commanders in the field become responsible for the safety of the
growing number of contractor employees at the expense of advancing
the battle?

The issue is just beginning to generate some attention in military
circles.

"We sort of blur the lines," Col. Steven J. Zamparelli of the Air
Force said in an interview. In an article in 1999 for the Air Force
Journal of Logistics, Colonel Zamaparelli said: "The Department of
Defense is gambling future military victory on contractors'
performing operational functions in the battlefield."

Others in the military are more blunt about the effect on soldiers.
"Are we ultimately trading their blood to save a relatively
insignificant amount in the national budget?" said Lt. Col. Lourdes
A. Castillo of the Air Force, a logistics expert, in a 2000 article
in Aerospace Power Journal. "If this grand experiment undertaken by
our national leadership fails during wartime, the results will be
unthinkable."

Copyright The New York Times Company

--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Local Campaigns Poised for Victory!
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:35:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================================================
CAMPAIGN NEWS from the Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
===============================================================
For more information contact:
Political Director Ron Crickenberger
E-mail: RonCrickenberger@HQ.LP.org
Phone 202-333-0008 Ext. 227
===============================================================

Fellow Libertarians!

Thanks to all of our hard-working Libertarian activists, we have set a
new record for the most candidates we have ever run in an election!
For
the 2000 elections, 1,600 Libertarian candidates are running in 49
states.

As we near Election Day, I'd like to thank all of our candidates this
year. They are putting in untold hours at great personal expense, with
too few thank-yous, to help us all reap a little more of the blessings
of Liberty.

I'm asking you to pitch in again this year for our candidates - in two
ways.

First, call or email a local candidate in your area and offer a little
more time, or money, or both. You can find out about local candidates
in your area at: http://www.lp.org/campaigns/candidates.php?year=2002

The last days of the campaign season are the most important. This is
when much of the voting public makes its decision - especially about
down-ballot races. The "end game" in elections decides a close win
from
a loss, or retaining ballot status or losing it.

Second, please read to the end of this message about some local
candidates from around the country whose races present special
opportunities for Libertarian electoral victories.

The hardest part of my job as Political Director is when I have to
turn
down a request from a candidate for funds. Almost all of the
candidates
who approach the national party for financial help deserve support. I
wish I had a treasury large enough to outspend the opposition in every
race we run. But until we grow the party to that point, we have to
make
hard decisions about who has the best chances of victory, and then
assist them the very best we can.

Winning these elections would be an incredibly important victory for
the entire Libertarian Party. And we've got some really great
campaigns
to tell you about ... all with tremendous potential to produce
Libertarian wins.

To contribute to these campaigns, please go to:
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=2002winnaberaces&fund=2002-0188

and make your best possible contribution now.

On behalf of our hard-working candidates, thank you.

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director

=============================
During the 30-year history of the Libertarian Party, we are the only
nationally organized party to have elected more than one state
representative. Libertarians have been elected nine times in the past
to state legislatures in Alaska, New Hampshire, and Vermont. This year
we have three excellent chances to return Libertarians to state
legislatures.

JAMES DAN for Nevada State Assembly, District 28
James Dan missed winning his last election by only a little over 200
votes. In 2000, Dan got 45% of the vote in a two-way race for State
Assembly in Nevada against a five-term incumbent. This is the best
that
any Libertarian candidate for State Assembly has ever done, other than
in Alaska, when running solely on a Libertarian ballot line.

This year, Dan will face the same incumbent again, but in a redrawn
district that should be even more favorable. The new district, while
substantially larger, retained the precincts that Dan did best in in
2000, and lost the precincts in which he performed the worst.

Dan has conducted an aggressive in-person door-to-door campaign, and
has several full-color direct mail pieces scheduled for the last two
weeks. He has already raised more than $50,000, which will allow him
to
spend about twenty dollars for every vote needed to win.

The National Libertarian Party has already contributed $5,000 to the
Dan campaign, and we would like to donate an additional $5,000. I have
also personally donated to the Dan campaign, and urge you to do so as
well. James has put substantial personal funds into the campaign, and
deserves our help. Please use the link at the end of this message.

James got outspent slightly in his last election - and just missed a
win. Your donation could give him the extra boost he needs to win this
time. Please make your best donation at:
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=2002winnaberaces&fund=2002-0188

HARDY MACIA for Vermont State Representative, Grand Isle-Chittenden
District 1-1
Hardy Macia is already an elected Libertarian - twice over. In 1999,
In
Vermont, Macia was elected to the Grand Isle Selectboard (City
Council), and also to the archaic position of Weigher of the Coal.
This
year Macia is attempting to move up into the state legislature, and
could be considered favored to win at this point.

Hardy will be listed on the ballot as a Libertarian/Republican, having
received the Libertarian nomination via convention, and the Republican
nomination by winning the primary. Hardy is the Vermont LP Secretary,
and a long-time Libertarian activist. He currently serves on the board
for Vermonters for Educational choice, and also as president and
founder of the Vermont Chapter of NORML.

Macia is running for one of two open seats in a newly redrawn district
- no incumbents. All five of the current incumbents that used to
represent parts of the new district have endorsed Hardy for the
election.

Macia will need only about 1,800 votes to win. I have personally
contributed to Hardy Macia's campaign, and urge you to do so as well.
We would like to help Hardy raise an additional $2,000. Due to
Vermont's campaign finance law limitations, we ask you to send
donations of no more than $200 directly to:
Macia for State Rep.
31 Town Line Rd.
Grand Isle VT 05458
And please send Hardy and email letting him know your donation is
coming, so that he can plan his final push. Hardy Macia
hardy2002@catamount.com

JEFF FOLI for State Representative, District 7
Jeff Foli is another elected Libertarian trying to move up to the
state
legislature. Foli was first elected mayor of Chillicothe in 1999 as a
Republican. In 2001, he ran for re-election as a Libertarian. Running
against an opponent with 22 years in city government, and outspent in
that election by a 6-1 margin, Foli won re-election with about 60% of
the vote, making him the only popularly elected, partisan Libertarian
mayor currently serving in the USA. Jeff's wife has helped to bring
some extra publicity to the campaign by being named Mrs. Missouri for
2002.

Chillicothe has 9,000 residents, and comprises about a quarter of the
legislative district. Jeff will need about 5,000 votes to win, and we
want to help him get them. We want to help him raise another $3,000
for
the home stretch of advertising. Due to Missouri campaign finance
restrictions, make your donations (up to $300 only) directly at the
candidate's website at: http://votefoli.com

JIM RICHARDSON for Skamania County (WA) Sheriff.
Jim is making his third run for office as a Libertarian, this time in
a
two-way race for Sheriff in a partisan two-way race with no incumbent.

In 2000, Richardson ran for Skamania County Commissioner in a 3-way
partisan race. He received 31% of the vote, coming within 200 votes
and
5% of winning.

In 2001, Richardson ran for Skamania County Cemetery District
Commissioner and won the nonpartisan race unopposed. Given his past
electoral experience and his 22-year career as a Deputy Sheriff in
Skamania County, he has a good chance of victory. The two previous
county sheriffs have also endorsed Richardson. The campaign has also
sent 2,500 hand-addressed personal notes to voters urging them to vote
in the early voting period.

We would like to send the Richardson for Sheriff campaign $3,000 to
help with phone bank costs and last minute advertising. I have
personally contributed to Jim's campaign, and I urge you to do so at
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=2002winnaberaces&fund=2002-0188
Help us elect the second Libertarian sheriff in our history!

DR. DON OSBERG for Upland City Council (CA)
In 2000 Don ran for this same non-partisan seat, and came in just 2.8%
behind the winner. This time there are 5 candidates, including 2
incumbents, vying for 3 spots on the council. Don has a very
impressive bi-lingual website at http://www.donosberg.org

Don has knocked on the doors of 9,500 voters throughout the city. In
addition to an endorsement from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's
Association, Don has over 400 individual endorsers publicly listed.
This is an excellent campaigning technique, and one that both
indicates
and engenders substantial support.

Upland is a city of 70,000 residents, so this will be a significant
victory - if we can give Don the resources he needs for the critical
push at the end. Don has put in substantial personal funds for this
campaign, and deserves our support.

We would like to send Don $3,000 to help put him over the top. Please
give your best donation today at:

http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=2002winnaberaces&fund=2002-0188

These are exciting campaigns indeed. But every one is a tight race,
and
urgently needs your immediate support.

The more of these local races we can win, the more credibility and
influence the entire Libertarian Party has. A Libertarian victory
anywhere is a victory for Libertarians everywhere!

We all want to see more Libertarian victories at the local level, and
these are opportunities that just can't be passed up.

Please make your most generous contribution today.

Thank you.

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPa86u9CSe1KnQG7RAQHemwQArpkIulUDH55WGNFwWs8WMsB6bw55LY5G
9ExGsOmcm55dudeGlPoHtuBIyWoaUboAQ5B3q4pPpP5pVuzw1wzy0dYsffjnMp7/
a8YhwyoCzfs1MnOzHKPWMgMkRKzG9tnqQ2nygKUQEEEq2FpKkFSXblSUMv+0pcH7
tkpidWBvV8M=
=Bpv3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/jd3IAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Ballistic Fingerprinting
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:37:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: October 17, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Ballistic fingerprinting is a "high-tech" scheme
designed to fool public, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- Demands for a federal ballistic fingerprinting law
should be rejected, Libertarians say, because such a measure is
unlikely to stop a madman like the Beltway sniper - and could even
turn
innocent Americans into criminal suspects.

"Ballistic fingerprinting may sound scientific, but upon closer
examination, it's completely full of holes," said Libertarian Party
Communications Director George Getz. "Criminals will circumvent it, as
they do with every other gun law, while innocent Americans will pay
the
price."

Currently, two states - Maryland and New York - mandate ballistic
fingerprinting for handguns. The process involves test firing a gun
before it is sold and keeping an electronic record of the unique
markings, or fingerprint, scratched onto the bullet as it travels
through the barrel. The purpose is to trace the bullet from a crime
scene back to the gun from which it was fired.

In the wake of the sniper shootings that have terrorized the
Washington, DC area and killed nine people since October 2, Sarah
Brady
and other gun control proponents are demanding a national ballistic
fingerprinting law, a renewed ban on so-called assault weapons and
other "sensible gun laws."

"The trouble with so-called 'sensible gun laws' is that they make
absolutely no sense," Getz said. "The politicians who pass them are
asking Americans to believe that a cunning serial killer will walk
into
a gun store, produce a valid ID, and buy a firearm that can be traced
directly to him.

"The American people may be scared, but they're not scared senseless."

Even a legally purchased, fingerprinted gun could be used in a crime
spree without being traced to the guilty party, Getz said.

"Firearms experts point out that a ballistic fingerprint changes over
time as more cartridges move through the barrel, and that the barrel
can be altered intentionally," he said. "In addition, barrels can be
replaced, creating a completely new fingerprint that does not exist in
any database."

As Ken Watson, legislative director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of
America, says: "Imagine a fingerprint database where people can switch
their fingerprints, and fingerprints wear down over time," and you
have an idea of why such a system won't work.

Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners have the most to fear, Libertarians
say.

"If your gun is ever lost or stolen and used in a crime, expect the
police to show up on your doorstep - because you'll have some
explaining to do," Getz said. "As is the case with waiting periods,
gun bans, and other restrictions, the only Americans who will be
inconvenienced are those who follow the law.

"Meanwhile, the next Beltway sniper will continue to maim, murder, and
mutilate - as innocent gun owners get harassed and politicians
campaign
for more 'sensible' gun laws."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "convictions make convicts"......
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:44:02 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill,

robert wrote the group quoting robert anton wilson: "convictions make
convicts".

in relation to my response to him, you accused me of initiating verbal
(aggression?) and attempting to decieve, claiming that i purposely confused
"courts of law with personal convictions".

well, bill, no matter how you, or anyone, reads "convictions make convicts",
it communicates a negative in relation to having convictions. and *THAT*
was robert's point, which even he assented to, below, disagreeing with your
argument with me, in relation to my argument with him, which you jumped into
the middle of, calling me "decptive".

in response to you, robert, moderated: saying only that "strong opinions can
lead to violence". really! what kind of violence, generic as the word is?
a strong 'opinion' on the part of a woman can lead to her 'imposing' her
opinion on a rapist. it was in the context of the generic discussion on
robert's part, with no distinction betweew the rapist and the rapee, in
relation to generic violence and "imposition" that he wrote "convictions
make convicts".

IN FACT, AND I FIGURE ROBERT KNOWS THIS, AND IT WAS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH
VIRTUALLY EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE READ FROM HIM, ANTON WILSON WAS COMMUNICATING
THAT THOSE WHO HAVE CONVICTIONS ARE CONVICTS, NECESSARILY, TO THOSE
CONVICTIONS (I'VE READ HIM). IT HAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST TO DO WITH A
PROPENSITY TO VIOLENCE, AS ROBERT SO MODERATED THE ARGUMENT, DECEPTIVELY.

in relation to objective, or rational morality, robert and anton wilson's
argument is even worse than moral relativism, or subjective morality. it is
an argument against **any** morality. it is an argument for nihilsm - "the
denial of all real existence and the possibility of any objective basis for
truth". it's an argument that, since there is no possiblity for objective
truth, anything goes, morally. anything! it's no damned surpise to me that
robert equates the the rapist and rapee, claiming self-defense "imposes" on
the rapist, just as the rapist "imposes" on the rapee.

the nice thing about nihilism is a person never has to argue *for*
anything. nope. it's the perfectly corrupt argument that *anyone* who
argues for anything is full of shit 'cause "...there is no possibilty for
objective truth" thus, the nihilist, making no positive claims, is safe from
attack, and safe to attack *any* positive claim. it is the 'perfect'
argument for those who just want to fight, and **win** for the helluva it.

the nihilist is caught in a blant contradiction, however! in the argument
that there are *no* valid opinions, nor even a hope to arrive at truth, he
is *very* opioniated about that, and claims that "no truth" is *the* truth.
IT'S A BLATANT CONTRADICTION!! any nihilist who is consistent, would just
shut the fuck up, recognizing that any opinions he has are purely arbitrary
with no validity, based on his own arguments. the helluva it is, robert
ain't shut-up. that's cause he ain't really a nihilist. it's just that he
likes to fight and 'win'.

now, bill, i don't figure you're a nihilist. but you do love to fight and
"win". you joined up with a nihilst, and picked a fight with me over the
word impose, and the anton wilson quote "convictions make convicts".

i'd take an apology, bill, especially in relation to me being "deceptive" in
my response to "convictions make convicts". even in robert's own words you
were clearly off base.

i don't expect one, bill, ever. wanna prove me wrong.

LF










on 10/7/02 9:25 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in small part:
>
>>> Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."
>
>> Here again,Mr. Fullmer, you initiate verbal and attempt to deceive.
>> Robert was using the word convictions on one context (courts of law),
>> and you screwed it around to another (as in a personal dedication).
>
> No, it was a deliberate pun. RAW meant that strong opinions can lead to
> crime. People become fanatics and get violent.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "convictions make convicts"......
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:14:04 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: lfullmer1@cableone.net

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Bill Anderson...

> in relation to objective, or rational morality, robert and anton wilson's
> argument is even worse than moral relativism, or subjective morality. it
is
> an argument against **any** morality. it is an argument for nihilsm -
"the
> denial of all real existence and the possibility of any objective basis
for
> truth".

You know Larry, until now at least I hadn't really considered that,
that is, that Robert's arguments are intrinsically based upon the
acceptance of the philosophical concepts underlying nihilism.
Recalling now some my early days as a philosophy student, it does make
a great deal of sense to characterize many of Robert's assumptions, as
he translates them into arguments, that the appearance at least
suggests he might be heavily steeped in nihilism.

This is particularly evident in his denial of even the possibility of
objective rights existing as a precondition, rights that is, as either
"natural rights" or rights given by the creator. He excludes even such
a possibility, and therefore objective rights in and of themselves do
not exist.

Thankfully nihilism isn't the first or last word in western
philosophy. Rene Descarte came to the realization earlier and
postulated that human existence exists because he himself exists and
because that could be demonstration because he was a thinking ego. "I
think, therefore I am." Descarte also extrapolated from that, that
because he thinks "he exists" concepts such as good and evil also
exist because they can be deduced from thought. He also said that God
exists, because the concept of a loving and merciful God is demanded
by theoretical thought, and because it can be conceived as such.
Likewise, evil exists because the mind is able to conceive of evil,
and to know it is wrong.

Nihilism however, coming into form as a radical variant of early
existentialism, denied that thought itself could be a observable or
objective criteria to measure such concepts of good and evil, or even
the existence of a creator, loving God, etc., therefore morality was
only subjective to the individual ego.

I believe, based largely upon an embodiment of Robert's writing for
several years, that he seems to fit in rather nicely with the above,
at least in many cases. Fortunately for Americans at least, this
radical mutation of existentialism was mostly confined to northern
Europe, and was not readily exported or accepted in the US, except for
study in college philosophy classes. I did have a college room mate a
long time ago (1967-68) who did claim to be an existentialist (and
also embraced the nihilist character of that school of thought).

He would make such statements as, "If you do something, you will
regret it; if you don't do it, you will regret it; so it really
doesn't matter." This was his own way of rationalizing his own
personal choices. "If I live, or die, it really doesn't matter." I
spent the entire college year listing to his analysis of social,
political and moral issues based largely upon his acceptance of this
philosophy. It would be interesting to see him again, 35 years later
now, and see if he has maintained such a position.

> it's an argument that, since there is no possiblity for objective
> truth, anything goes, morally. anything! it's no damned surpise to me
that
> robert equates the the rapist and rapee, claiming self-defense "imposes"
on
> the rapist, just as the rapist "imposes" on the rapee.

Not exactly. My old college room mate, John Parker, would have said
the same thing, excluding and objective morality or rights. "If you
rape you will
regret it, if you don't commit the rape, you will regret it, so it
really doesn't matter." That would have been his take on the subject
at hand for sure at least at that time.

> the nice thing about nihilism is a person never has to argue *for*
> anything. nope. it's the perfectly corrupt argument that *anyone* who
> argues for anything is full of shit 'cause "...there is no possibilty for
> objective truth" thus, the nihilist, making no positive claims, is safe
from
> attack, and safe to attack *any* positive claim. it is the 'perfect'
> argument for those who just want to fight, and **win** for the helluva it.

That's why those who embrace nihilistic tendencies enjoy
"mousemilking" exercises and concentrating their debating efforts in
silly word games and other such nonsense. But ultimately it is NOT
really true that nihilists have NO objective truth, they really do
have one, at least one that they profess to be the absolute. And that
objective truth is that, as you say, they believe ultimate objective
truth is not possible. That is THEIR standard, and for nihilists,
that is an absolute standard upon which they accept no possibility
that any other objective standard can challenge that assumption.

But even nihilists accept at least one notion somewhat resembling
"bad" and "good", but they won't call it as such. That is the notion
of "pain" or the "absence of pain", but only for themselves! They can
even choose to inflict pain upon others, but for them personally, "it
really doesn't matter." As such, many nihilists claim at least that
their own choices are made based upon the probable consequences of
their choices, that is, consequences probably resulting in the least
amount of individual personal pain. Is this an issue regarding such
things as rape?

Well, it can be under some circumstances. Take rape or murder for
instance, or any other aggressive crime against others. Nihilists, to
be consistent, obviously would say that they personally don't care
about such "laws", but they nevertheless acknowledge that such
arbitrary laws exist. As such, they also recognize that if they are
apprehended as a result of certain actions, it will result in pain for
themselves, and therefore it would likely be less painful if they do
not commit the rape, murder or theft.

> the nihilist is caught in a blant contradiction, however! in the argument
> that there are *no* valid opinions, nor even a hope to arrive at truth, he
> is *very* opioniated about that, and claims that "no truth" is *the*
truth.
> IT'S A BLATANT CONTRADICTION!!

It's back to the question again of the only objective absolute a
nihilist will accept, e.g.: that no objective truth, morality or
rights exist. There is only ONE truth, and that is no truth can exist.
A counteraction to be sure, but for consistent nihilists, this is
still the bottom line of their argument.

> any nihilist who is consistent, would just
> shut the fuck up, recognizing that any opinions he has are purely
arbitrary
> with no validity, based on his own arguments.

I remember again some of the ramblings of John Parker. I did hit him
with this contradiction. He said, "that too, doesn't matter." Again,
I believe he was more concerned with the idea of personal pain, or the
absence of personal pain. But he said that to defend his argument, or
not to defend his argument, really didn't matter. His reality
consisted mainly: you are born, you live, and you die, and other than
that, it really doesn't matter. He would have acknowledged however
that while in the "living mode", it is better to make choices in most
cases that might have the propensity to bring about personal pain.

> the helluva it is, robert
> ain't shut-up. that's cause he ain't really a nihilist. it's just that
he
> likes to fight and 'win'.
> now, bill, i don't figure you're a nihilist. but you do love to fight and
> "win". you joined up with a nihilst, and picked a fight with me over the
> word impose, and the anton wilson quote "convictions make convicts".

I haven't read the book, so I can't really comment on what was its
philosophical basis, but your definition of nihilism is certainly
pretty much on the mark. I don't personally know if Robert, or Bill,
are inwardly nihilists either, since I can only follow the nature of
the assumptions and debate language they employ in such terms such as
"rights", "morality and so forth. In such usage, Robert probably comes
about the closest I've seen here in at least making nihilist arguments
as a basis for (his own) individual liberty.

There is another contradiction too. Because if a nihilist is truly
consistent, he/she would have to say, that too "doesn't really
matter", and certainly the idea of individual liberty for "others"
certainly doesn't ultimately matter to him/her personally.

I want to close this with at least an upbeat note. Pure nihilism in
its raw stages (as I've written about here) is really rather rare,
particularly within existentialist circles. When raw nihilism reared
its ugly head within existentialism, there was a series of broad based
counteractions to its presence, which if gone unchallenged would have
inflicted a grave threat to humanity itself, morality, and natural
law.

Nihilism was challenged at its core. Various directions of existential
ideals were the result, some such as Immanuel Kant moved in the
direction of a Christian Existentialism ("the leap of faith"), while
others moved in a secular direction that eventually formed the basis
for modern secular humanism, but earlier was identified as rational
existentialism embracing rational thought as a basis for defining
morality and rights.

Thanks Larry for a very exciting (for me) and informative post. It
certainly brings back a lot of academic memories, and even debates, as
I started out as a philosophy major, and remained so for my first two
years. When I switched my major to both Political Science and
Sociology, my background in philosophy was certainly very helpful
along the way.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "convictions make convicts"......
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:46:56 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I don't remember what book of Wilson's it was in, and he may have used
it more than once. All he was doing was observing that people have a
tendency to take ideas to the point of fanaticism, and that that can
lead to criminal behavior.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:53:48 +0100
From: "Dr Chris R. Tame" <chris@rand.demon.co.uk>
To: libnw@immosys.com

LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

A CONFERENCE ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, THE FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

***


Saturday 9 November - Sunday 10 November, 2002

Saturday:10.00am-6.00pm
Sunday: 10.00am-11.00pm

The National Liberal Club
Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2HE
England

Speakers:

*Professor Antony Flew - A Critique of Welfare Rights
*Alan Forester - Why Libertarians Should Take Children Seriously
*Professor John Burton - Economic Liberalism Revisited
*Dr Eamon Butler - "Third Way" Interventionism in the UK and Its Lessons
*Professor Terence Kealey - Science Is Not a Public Good - And Requires
No Public Support
*Stefan Blankertz - Nature or Nurture: A Libertarian Perspective on the
Debate on Intelligence
*Francois-Rene Rideau - Government is the Rule of "Black Magic": On
Human Sacrifice and Other Modern Superstitions
*Sarah Lawrence - The Semblance of Consent: How Tyrants Use the Illusion
of Freedom
*Professor Norman Barry - Business Ethics and Regulation: A Libertarian
View
*Robin Ramsay - In Defence of Paranoia: Myths and Realities of
"Conspiracy Theory"
*Professor Tibor Machan - Are Political Principles Stable?
*Richard Miniter - The Reality of the Middle East and Libertarian Policy
Dilemmas
*Dr. Ken Minogue - The Chameleon Servility and Its Contemporary
Camouflage
*Panel Discussion: LI and LA Representatives - Liberty and Strategy in
International Context
Chaired by Hubert Jongen, Chairman of the Libertarian International.
*Panel Discussion: Mark Littlewood, Dr. Sean Gabb & Dr. Chris R. Tame -
The Destruction of Civil Liberties in the UK and Its Lessons

Other Features:

*Special Banquet: Including distinguished Guest Speakers and the
presentation of the Libertarian Alliance's "Liberty Awards" for 2002

*The "Think Tank Room": Displays and sale of publications by major
British think tanks and political journals: Adam Smith Institute;
Institute of Economic Affairs; CIVITAS; FOREST; Social Affairs Unit;
Independent Healthcare Association; Social Market Foundation;
Spiked; Demos; The Fabian Society; The European Foundation; LIBERTY;
Salisbury Review; Lobster and others.

About The Speakers:

*Professor Norman Barry is Professor of Politics at the University of
Buckingham. His many books and monographs include 'Hayek's Social and
Economic Philosophy', 'An Introduction to Modern Political Theory', 'The
Morality of Business Enterprise', 'Classical Liberalism in an Age of
Post-Communism', 'Business Ethics', 'On Classical Liberalism and
Libertarianism', 'Welfare', 'The New Right', 'The Invisible Hand in
Economics and Politics: A Study in Two Conflicting Explanations of
Society, End-States and Processes', and, for the LA, 'An Individualist's
View of Marriage and the Family'. The University of Buckingham website
is: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk

*Dr. Stefan Blankwertz is one of Germany's leading libertarian thinkers
and activists. The German representative of the Libertarian
International, he is the author of many books, pamphlets and papers (in
German and English), including 'Courts, Judges and the Law in the Free
City', 'Has the State Always Been There?', 'Gestalt Therapy: A
Libertarian Approach to the Social Psychology of Unhappiness' and (for
the LA) 'Towards A Libertarian Theory of Fascism'.

*Professor John Burton is currently Professor of Economics at the
University of Westminster. He has published extensively in such journals
as 'Economic Journal', 'International Journal of Social Economics',
'Scottish Journal of Political Economy', 'Journal of Industrial
Affairs', 'Journal of Labour Research', 'Economic Affairs', 'Research in
Labour Economics', 'British Journal of Industrial Relations',
'Manchester School', 'Three Banks Review', and 'Government Union
Review'. His books and monographs include 'Wage Inflation', 'The
Consequences of Mr. Keynes', 'The Job-Support Machine', 'Employment
Policy, Trade Unions and Society', and 'Picking Losers: The Political
Economy of Industrial Policy' and he has edited such works as 'Hayek's
'Serfdom' Revisited', 'Keynes's General Theory: Fifty Years On', and
'Industrial Policy'. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Council of
the Institute of Economic Affairs, a member of the Editorial Board of a
number of academic journals, Executive Co-Editor of 'Business Studies',
and on the Advisory Council of the LA.

*Dr Eamon Butler is Director of the Adam Smith Institute, the UK's
leading free market think tank. He is the author of many books including
'Hayek: His Contribution to the Economic and Political Thought of Our
Time', 'Milton Friedman: A Guide to His Thought', 'Ludwig Von Mises:
Fountainhead of the Modern Microeconomics Revolution' and 'Forty
Centuries of Wage and Price Controls'. He has also edited and
contributed to countless ASI reports on many policy issues, appears on
TV regularly, and contributes frequently to the press. The ASI website
is: http://www.adamsmith.org

*Professor Antony Flew is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the
University of Reading, and one of Britain's leading philosophers. He is
the author of countless books and essay, including 'Thinking
About Thinking', 'Thinking About Social Thinking', 'Sociology, Equality
and Education', 'A Rational Animal?', and 'Crime or Disease?', 'David
Hume: Philosopher of Social Science', 'An Introduction to Western
Philosophy', 'Death With Dignity', Atheistic Humanism', 'Does God
Exist?', 'The Presumption of Atheism', 'The Politics of Procrustes:
Contradictions of Enforced Equality', 'God and Philosophy', 'Darwinian
Evolution', 'The Philosophy of Poverty', and 'Equality in Liberty and
Justice'

*Alan Forester is an activist in the "Taking Children Seriously"
movement. A former socialist and a graduate in physics he now describes
himself as a "Hayekian, Popperian, anarcho-capitalist".

*Dr. Sean Gabb is Editor of the Libertarian Alliance journal 'Free Life'
and 'Free Life Commentary'. He is author of countless articles,
monographs and the book 'Despatches From a Dying Country', and also
appears regularly in the British media. He is also the founder of the
successful euro-sceptic campaigning website "Candidlist" which created
havoc for unprincipled Conservative Party candidates and enabled
constituencies to exercise informed democratic choice of candidates.
His websites are: http://www.seangabb.co.uk and http://www.candidlist.d
emon.co.uk

*Hubert Jongen is a successful Dutch businessman and the founder and
Chairman of the Libertarian International. He has received many
international awards for his libertarian activism, including the
Libertarian Alliance's "Liberty in Action" International Award for 1999.

*Professor Terence Kealey is former Wellcome Senior Research Fellow in
Clinical Biochemistry at the University of Oxford, former lecturer in
Clinical Biochemistry at Cambridge University and is now Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Buckingham. He is also author of 'Science Fiction -
And the True Way to Save British Science' and 'The Economic Laws of
Scientific Research'. The University of Buckingham website is:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk

*Sarah Lawrence is a single mother and the founder of the worldwide
libertarian parenting "Taking Children Seriously" movement, devoted to
liberty, autonomy and respect for children. She edits the journal Taking
Children Seriously and operates the internet discussion lists "Taking
Children Seriously" and "The Autonomy-Respecting Relationships List".
She is the author of a number of papers and pamphlets, including
'European Union: Liberty or Leviathan', 'Appearance, Reality and
Education Law', 'Children's Rights and the Law', 'Against Sharing
Equally' and speaks regularly at libertarian conferences throughout the
world. Her websites are: http://www.sarahlawrence.org/ and
http://www.tcs.ac.

*Mark Littlewood is a supporter of the Libertarian Alliance, former Head
of Regional Campaigning of The European Movement, and currently
Campaigns Director of LIBERTY (The National Council for Civil
Liberties). His essays have appeared in such journals as 'New
Federalist', 'European Campaigner' and 'Britain in Europe' and
as LA monographs.

*Tibor Machan is Professor of Philosophy at Chapman University,
California, and is the world’s leading libertarian philosopher. His
essays have appeared in such journals as ‘The Monist’, ‘Social
Philosophy and Policy’, ‘Reason Papers’ and ‘The Pacific Journal of
Philosophy’, amongst others and he is the author of numerous books,
including ‘Capitalism and Individualism’, 'Classical Individualism: The
Supreme Importance of Each Human Being’, ‘Human Rights and Human
Liberties’, ‘Individuals and Their Rights’, ‘Liberty and Culture’,
‘The
Moral Case for the Free Market Economy’, ‘Private Rights and
Public Illusions’, ‘The Pseudo-Science of B. F. Skinner’, ‘A Primer
on
Ethics’, ‘The Virtue of Liberty’, ‘Introduction to Philosophical
Inquiries’. He has also edited such works as ‘Commerce and Morality’,
‘Individual Rights Reconsidered’, ‘Ayn Rand’, ‘Business Ethics in
the
Global Market’, ‘Education in a Free Society’, ‘The Libertarian
Reader’,
‘Liberty and Democracy’, ‘Rights and Regulation’, ‘Political
Philosophy’, ;Recent Work in Philosophy’, ‘Liberty for the 21st
Century’, and ‘The Main Debate: Communism Versus Capitalism’.
His website is: http://tibormachan.com

*Richard Miniter is an American award-winning investigative reporter. He
has written for 'The Wall Street Journal', 'The New York Times', 'The
Washington Post', and 'The Christian Science Monitor' as well as 'The
Atlantic Monthly', 'The New Republic', 'National Review' and 'Readers
Digest'. He has been an editorial page writer at 'The Wall Street
Journal Europe' and also wrote a weekly column, "The Visible Hand," for
'The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com. Currently, he is a
Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think
tank. He is also the author of 'The Myth of Market Share' (Random
House/Crown Business, 2002) and of the forthcoming investigative work
'The Duel: Clinton's Secret War on Bin Laden'.

*Professor Ken Minogue is Professor of Politics at the London School of
Economics. He was the narrator of the noted TV series 'The New
Enlightenment'. His many books and monographs include 'Alien Powers: The
Pure Theory of Ideology', 'The Egalitarian Conceit: False and True
Equalities', 'The Constitutional Mania', 'The Concept of a University',
'The Liberal Mind', 'Nationalism', 'Ideas About Freedom: A Discussion',
'How Much Justice Does a Society Need?', 'Silencing of Society: The True
Cost of the Lust For News', 'Democracy and the Welfare State',
'Citizenship and Monarchy: A Hidden Fault Line In Our Civilisation' and
'Politics: A Very Short Introduction'. He is also the editor of
'Conservative Realism: New Essays on Conservatism', 'Thatcherism:
Personality and Politics' and 'Contemporary Political Philosophers'.

*Robin Ramsay is the founder and editor of 'Lobster', the respected
journal of "conspiracy" and para-political research. He is also the
author of 'Smear!: Wilson and the Secret State', 'Prawn Cocktail Party:
The Hidden Power of New Labour', 'Conspiracy Theories', and, for the LA,
'On Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories: The Truth Buried by the
Fantasies'. His website is: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

*Francois-Rene Rideau, of Vietnamese-French extraction, is a computer
programmer and and co-ordinator of the TUNES project, which strives to
design and implement a computing system based upon the paradigm of total
computing freedom. He is also the author of a number of papers,
including the 'Manifesto for Free Information' and 'Patents Are An
Economic Absurdity". He is also a member of the Committee to Preserve
the Works of Frederick Bastiat. His website is: http://fare.tunes.org

*Dr. Chris R. Tame is the Founder and Director of the Libertarian
Alliance and on the Board of Directors of the Libertarian International.
He is author of numerous academic and political essays and monographs,
and has contributed to such academic and political journals as 'The
Jewish Journal of Sociology', 'Il Politico', 'Economic Affairs', 'The
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies', 'Wetrtfei', 'The
Journal of Libertarian Studies', 'The Freethinker', 'Libertarian Forum',
and 'Science and Public Policy'. He has also contributed to such books
as 'The Case For Private Enterprise', 'The 'New Right' Enlightenment',
and 'The Politics of Crime Control'. He has addressed many academic and
scholarly conferences throughout the world and appears frequently on
British television and radio.

************************************************************************

The Conference fee covers conference attendance, morning and afternoon
tea and coffee, and the closing Banquet (but not accommodation - see
below for our suggestion on this).

HOW TO BOOK

Please print out complete and return the booking form below.

Accommodation

The cost of accommodation is NOT included in the price of this
conference. We recommend Central Conference Reservations who offer
discounted booking for a wide price-range of hotel accommodation in
London. They can be contacted at: Central Conference Reservations, 10
Dudley Court, Upper Berkeley Street, London, W1H 7PH;
Tel: 020 7724 4470
Fax: 020 7706 4244
Email: centralreserve@aol.com

Alternatively, you are free to make your own bookings directly or via a
travel agency.

BOOKING FORM

I/We wish to book ..... places at the Liberty 2002 Conference at £75.00
($111 US) (115 Euros) per place.

Name: ...............................................................
Address: ............................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
Country: ............................................................
Tel: ................................................................
Fax: ................................................................
Email: ..............................................................

I enclose a cheque, payable to "The Libertarian Alliance", in pounds
sterling for ..... or in US dollars for ...

Please note that the Libertarian Alliance can accept only cheques in
pounds sterling or in US dollars.

Return to: Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director, The Libertarian Alliance, 25
Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk

ALTERNATIVELY, if you wish to pay by cheques in Euros or in any other
European currency, you may send your currency's equivalent of £75,
payable to "The Libertarian International", to:

The Libertarian International
P.O.Box 21,
B-2910,
Essen,
Belgium.
Fax:+31-165-348035
Email: Info@libertarian.to

BANK: RaboBank acc. 17.43.35.350.
E-GOLD account nr. 102265 (Libertarian International)

If you chose to pay in this latter manner you must send a copy of this
booking form to BOTH the Libertarian Alliance and to the Libertarian
International.

ENDS

--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@rand.demon.co.uk
LA Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website: http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum: groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:47:40 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
> THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND

Should I take it a new organization with that name has been formed since
the merger of the LI with SIL?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:06:22 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Dr. Chris Tame...

Dr. Tame wrote:
> > LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
> > THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND

You replied, as such:
> Should I take it a new organization with that name has been formed since
> the merger of the LI with SIL?

Since you are discussing this on a much wider audience here, I believe
some explanations are due. The Libertarian Alliance, with Dr. Tame as
Chairman, posted an announcement -- and I'm wondering just what
historical perspective you may be coming from? Seems to me, you need
to define some things, such as LI and SIL to make this conversation
even somewhat relevant to the rest of us who may be lurking here.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:21:52 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> asked:

> > > LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
> > > THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND
>
> > Should I take it a new organization with that name has been formed
since
> > the merger of the LI with SIL?
>
> Seems to me, you need
> to define some things, such as LI and SIL to make this conversation
> even somewhat relevant to the rest of us who may be lurking here.

The Libertarian International (est. 1979) and the Society for Individual
Liberty (est. 1970) merged in 1989 to form the International Society for
Individual Liberty. At least some members of one or both grumbled about
the merger. (SIL formed mostly from RLA, a temporary outgrowth from
YAF.) So I gather the above-mentioned is a new LI.

I have a sense that maybe Chris explained this to me/us once before, but
I forgot.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:20:33 +0100
From: "Dr Chris R. Tame" <chris@rand.demon.co.uk>
To: libnw@immosys.com

In article <002001c276eb$8efe0740$2d03b3d8@computer>, Robert Goodman
<robgood@bestweb.net> writes
>"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> asked:
>
>> > > LIBERTY 2002: THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF
>> > > THE LIBERTARIAN INTERNATIONAL AND
>>
>> > Should I take it a new organization with that name has been formed
>since
>> > the merger of the LI with SIL?
>>
>> Seems to me, you need
>> to define some things, such as LI and SIL to make this conversation
>> even somewhat relevant to the rest of us who may be lurking here.
>
>The Libertarian International (est. 1979) and the Society for Individual
>Liberty (est. 1970) merged in 1989 to form the International Society for
>Individual Liberty. At least some members of one or both grumbled about
>the merger. (SIL formed mostly from RLA, a temporary outgrowth from
>YAF.) So I gather the above-mentioned is a new LI.
>
>I have a sense that maybe Chris explained this to me/us once before, but
>I forgot.
>
>In Your Sly Tribe,
>Robert
>

The Libertarian International was the original name of the US-based
organisation set up by Vince Miller and his colleagues. For various
reasons (including confusion with the Libertarian Party) Vince decided
to change the name to the "International Society for Individual Liberty"
(at the same time I believed he also merged with what was left of the
old US-based Society for Individual Liberty.) Most non-US, European
based LI-reps, however, did not want to abandon the name "Libertarian
International" and therefore tended to refer to the organisation as "The
International Society for Individual Liberty: The Libertarian
International". We Europeans continue to run our end of things as simply
the "Libertarian International", with separate funding, co-operate
fraternally with ISIL, and hold European-based Conferences that are
complimetary to, and not competitors with, ISIL's world conferences.

Phew! I hope that's clear.

Best wishes,

Chris

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@rand.demon.co.uk
LA Email: admin@libertarian.co.uk
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website: http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum: groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian International Conference, London, 9-10 November
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:34:57 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> The Libertarian International (est. 1979) and the Society for Individual
> Liberty (est. 1970) merged in 1989 to form the International Society for
> Individual Liberty. At least some members of one or both grumbled about
> the merger. (SIL formed mostly from RLA, a temporary outgrowth from
> YAF.) So I gather the above-mentioned is a new LI.

Based upon the itinerary posted by Dr. Tame, and the personalities
that are to appear, seem to indicate that the organization may at
least be well recognized.

Some of the information you seek can be obtained by going to Dr.
Tame's "Libertarian Alliance" web site, then click on "Links" in the
left column. The site is located at:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP TV ADS TO AIR NATIONALLY
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:01:40 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

LP TV ADS TO AIR NATIONALLY
***************************
FROM LIBERTARIAN PARTY
POLITICAL DIRECTOR RON CRICKENBERGER

Dear Libertarian Party Supporter,

Today is Friday, October 18th.

We have exactly 17 days left before the election.

And, right now, our candidates' most urgent need is advertising - a
fact which probably doesn't surprise you. So, we've created a special
opportunity to give every one of our 1600 candidates a big advertising
boost in the most cost-effective way possible.

And, yes, this is a request for a contribution. But, I promise it
will
be brief, so please keep reading.

YOU'RE IN A UNIQUE POSITION.

You are one of 40,000 subscribers to the Libertarian Party e-mail
list.

As a subscriber, you've been first to read our press releases and
advisories. You know, better than anyone, how hard our members and
candidates have been working this election. And, on election night,
you'll be the first to learn about our victories.

Now YOU can be our first line offense, and make a CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE
for ALL of our hard working candidates in these last 17 days.

WITH YOUR HELP WE CAN RUN NATIONAL TV ADVERTISING THIS YEAR!

Candidates and parties are always looking for a "wedge" issue - an
issue that much of the public supports - but that their opponents
don't. The wedge issue of slavery led to the formation of the
Republican Party prior to the civil war, and the wedge issue of the
national debt propelled Ross Perot's first campaign for president to
get 19% of the vote in 1992.

Currently, there is only one issue that has 73% of the voting public
in
its favor, and 90% of major party candidates against it - medical
marijuana. It is an issue with great public sympathy, and one where
the
public fully understands that the government is lying to them.

Medical Marijuana is an issue that lets Libertarians show that the
government's priorities are all wrong. We are spending vast sums of
taxpayer dollars to send armies of armed agents to raid medical
cannabis clinics - throwing terminally ill patients out in the street
-
instead of focusing our precious law enforcement resources on violent
criminals and terrorist.

Medical Marijuana is an issue that the LP can use to persuade voters
that we are the party of common sense and compassion.

Medical Marijuana passes overwhelmingly in every state where it is put
to a vote of the people, and is an issue that could move just enough
voters to switch from an incumbent drug warrior to the Libertarian
candidate that the prohibitionist goes down to defeat.

This is an issue where the Libertarian Party can play a critical role
in ending an insanely cruel policy that produces nothing but
suffering.

And we have produced a great new TV ad that puts human faces on that
suffering -and shows the Libertarian Party as the solution.

You can view the ad online now at:

http://www.lp.org/issues/MedicalMarijuanaAd.html

Every two years we get the opportunity to buy advertising at the very
low political rates that are only available for the weeks leading up
to
the election. Political rates are often half the price - or less - of
the regular advertising rates we would have to pay to get our message
out at other times.

But our ability to book time on national cable networks is limited by
our cash on hand -- because stations require payment IN ADVANCE for
political ads. We've spent so much recently on ballot access and
candidate support that we have very little in our coffers to get the
ad
on the air.

If we want to get these ads on the air before the election, we need a
QUICK influx of cash.

That's where you can help.

After you finish reading this letter, please:

1. Go to http://www.lp.org/issues/MedicalMarijuanaAd.html to see the
ad
and contribute by credit card. Contributing by credit card will get
the
most ads on the air the soonest. You can also call me personally to
contribute at 202-333-0008, ext. 227.

2. If you prefer to contribute by check, WRITE A CHECK, and PUT IT IN
TODAY'S OUTGOING MAIL. If you do that, we could have your check as
early as noon Monday and be busily booking more ads right after lunch.
A contribution form for you to print and mail is at the end of this
message.

When we asked our e-mail announcement subscribers for advertising help
at the end of the 2000 presidential campaign, you responded with more
than $40,000 dollars for TV ads. Our list is twice as large now as it
was then, so we could potentially raise $100,000 to run advertising
the
week before the election.

That much advertising would put our ad on TV before as many as 10
million viewers, who will see our ad right before they go to the polls
and vote.

But only if you contribute today.

That's 10 million people, sick to death of the Democrats and
Republicans, who could be shown the Libertarian alternative.

But they won't be shown the Libertarian alternative if you don't send
your best contribution now. Your donation is our budget for this vital
support for our candidates.

Can you send $1,000 today to help get this message out? Or $500? Or
$250 or $100? What-ever you can send, whether it is $5 or $5,000, we
will put it to immediate use in running more ads.

Remember, there are only 17 days left until the election.

So we need your contribution NOW when it will do the most good.

Please -- help give us the fast infusion of cash we need to keep
escalating our advertising buys right up through Election Day.

Please -- help us end the needless suffering and threat of arrest of
critically ill medical marijuana patients.

On behalf of the tens of thousands of patients who are desperately
counting on our help, thank you.

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director
Libertarian Party

P.S. -- Contribute by credit card at our web site and we'll get a
jump-
start on placing ads. The URL is:

http://www.lp.org/issues/MedicalMarijuanaAd.html

HERE'S THE CONTRIBUTION FORM: Please print out the form
below on your computer printer, fill it in, and enclose it
with your check.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _

ENCLOSED IS MY CONTRIBUTION OF:
[ ] $10,000 to reach more than one million TV viewers.
[ ] $1,000 to reach more than 100,000 viewers.
[ ] $500 to put our message on 50,000 TV screens.
[ ] $250 to put another nail in the coffin of the war on drugs
[ ] $100 to protect medical marijuana patients.

LIMITATIONS: Contributions to political committees are not tax-
deductible.

Please make your check payable to "Libertarian Party" or provide the
following information for credit card payment:

[ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] Amex [ ] Discover

Card number________________________ Expires____________

Signature______________________________________________

Name___________________________________________________

Address________________________________________________

City_________________________ State____ Zip____________

Phone__________________________________________________

E-Mail_________________________________________________

Occupation_____________________________________________

Employer_______________________________________________

NOTE: Federal law requires political committees to report the name,
mailing address, and occupation and name of employer for each
individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a
calendar year.

PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR ENVELOPE TO:

E-mail Response
Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue NW/Suite 100
Washington, DC 20037

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Create a PAYCHECK with your COMPUTER or Enjoy Cheap ISP & Huge Shopping Discounts
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:04:11 -1100
From: <hugh6756v76@bigfoot.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Good afternoon -

You get emails every day, offering to show you how to make money.
Most of these emails are from people who are NOT making any money.
And they expect you to listen to them?

Enough.

If you want to make money with your computer, then you should
hook up with a group that is actually DOING it. We are making
a large, continuing income every month. What's more - we will
show YOU how to do the same thing.

This business is done completely by internet and email, and you
can even join for free to check it out first. If you can send
an email, you can do this. No special "skills" are required.

How much are we making? Anywhere from $2000 to $9000 per month.
We are real people, and most of us work at this business part-time.
But keep in mind, we do WORK at it - I am not going to
insult your intelligence by saying you can sign up, do no work,
and rake in the cash. That kind of job does not exist. But if
you are willing to put in 10-12 hours per week, this might be
just the thing you are looking for.

This is not income that is determined by luck, or work that is
done FOR you - it is all based on your effort. But, as I said,
there are no special skills required. And this income is RESIDUAL -
meaning that it continues each month (and it tends to increase
each month also).

Interested? I invite you to find out more. You can get in as a
free member, at no cost, and no obligation to continue if you
decide it is not for you. We are just looking for people who still
have that "burning desire" to find an opportunity that will reward
them incredibly well, if they work at it.

To grab a FREE ID#, simply reply to: hughzou@21cn.com
and in the body of the email, write this phrase:

"Grab me a free membership!"

Be sure to include your:
1. First name
2. Last name
3. Email address (if different from above)

We will confirm your position and send you a special report
as soon as possible, and also Your free Member Number.

That's all there's to it.

We'll then send you info, and you can make up your own mind.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,

Hugh Zou

P.S. After having several negative experiences with network
marketing companies I had pretty much given up on them.
This is different - there is value, integrity, and a
REAL opportunity to have your own home-based business...
and finally make real money on the internet.

Don't pass this up..you can sign up and test-drive the
program for FREE. All you need to do is get your free
membership.

Unsubscribing: Send a blank email to: hughzou@21cn.com with
"Remove" in the subject line. By submitting a request for a FREE
DHS Club Membership, I agree to accept email from the DHS Club for
both their consumer and business opportunities.

This message is not intended for residents of the state of
Washington, and screening of addresses has been done to the best
of our technical ability. If you are Washington resident or
otherwise wish to be removed from this list, just follow the
removal instructions above.

5051vIlM4-245TLNN0790nTKf5-631aBEd0146uJAg0-184oxOM8953WNlK8-40l59

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Store Offers Terror Attack Supplies
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:11:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Store Offers Terror Attack Supplies
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:25:10 -0600
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

Store Offers Terror Attack Supplies

By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer
October 17, 2002, 7:56 AM EDT

NEW YORK -- Biohazard suit? Check. Potassium iodide pills? Check. Parachute
for
jumping from a burning high-rise building? Check.

Worried New Yorkers will be able to do all of their emergency-preparedness
shopping at
one store when Safer America opens Thursday in Manhattan.

At the shop a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, the staff of five
employees will
help customers test radiation detectors and choose from survival kits that
range in price from
$60 to $300. They'll patiently explain the differences among the many gas
masks perched on
plastic heads with blank faces.

The employees know why this mask costs more than that one (purely comfort,
not filtering
ability) and why one is blue while most are black (some people prefer
colored masks
because they don't look as menacing).

That customer service is one of the main reasons the store's founders
believe it will be a
success. Many of the items they offer are generally only available online or
through
catalogues, says company president Harvey Kushner, a renowned terrorism
expert.

At Safer America, Kushner said, customers aren't ordering from a
"survivalist catalogue
where you get pepper spray and a badge and a camouflage suit and a video on
how to be a
sniper. You're buying from someplace legitimate, and we stand by what we
sell."

The shop was born when co-founder Frederic Samama wanted to purchase a gas
mask last
spring to keep at his Upper West Side apartment.

"I couldn't find a reliable source -- it's good to speak to someone, to ask
how it works and to
get training," said Samama, who left his job as a bond trader to start the
store. "The idea
came to me that retail stores of this kind should exist."

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the trade center, which killed
nearly 2,800 people,
gas mask distributors said demand multiplied because of terrorism fears. One
major Texas
distributor of military surplus items reported sales of 39,000 masks in the
month after Sept.
11, compared with 250 during the same period the year before.

Samama and Kushner say they plan to open two additional Manhattan stores.
They also
hope to keep adding to the inventory.

Kushner, a Long Island University professor and author of numerous books on
terrorism,
said the safety-conscious shopper just starting out should begin with the
basics -- a flashlight
and radio.

After that, he recommends stocking up on potassium iodide pills, which can
be taken in the
event of radiation exposure to block the thyroid gland's absorption of
radioactive iodine,
reducing the risk of thyroid cancer. A bottle of 56 pills sells for $11.

Kushner also says everyone should keep an escape hood by the bed. (He has
six at his Long
Island home.) The plastic hood with a filter is designed for one-time use to
escape from an
area where the air is not safe to breathe because of smoke or another
airborne hazard.

The shop sells hoods from $40 to $195.

In addition to selecting items separately, shoppers can purchase packages
such as the High
Rise Kit, which sells at $945 and includes a biohazard suit, potassium
iodide pills, rubber
gloves and booties, a flashlight, duct tape and a parachute.

Samama said the high-rise parachutes will open from anywhere above 10
stories but should
be considered a last resort for escaping. They start at $845.

Samama and Kushner say shopping for protection against bioterror attacks and
other
emergencies is empowering and practical. Both say it's no different from
keeping fire
extinguishers in the home.

"It used to be about paranoia, and now it's about being prepared," Samama
said. "Paranoia is
when you imagine the threat -- unfortunately, now the threat is real."

* __ On the Net: Safe America: http://www.saferamerica.com

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-terror-shopping1017oct17,0,6384901.story


By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer
October 17, 2002, 7:56 AM EDT

NEW YORK -- Biohazard suit? Check. Potassium iodide pills? Check. Parachute
for
jumping from a burning high-rise building? Check.

Worried New Yorkers will be able to do all of their emergency-preparedness
shopping at
one store when Safer America opens Thursday in Manhattan.

At the shop a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, the staff of five
employees will
help customers test radiation detectors and choose from survival kits that
range in price from
$60 to $300. They'll patiently explain the differences among the many gas
masks perched on
plastic heads with blank faces.

The employees know why this mask costs more than that one (purely comfort,
not filtering
ability) and why one is blue while most are black (some people prefer
colored masks
because they don't look as menacing).

That customer service is one of the main reasons the store's founders
believe it will be a
success. Many of the items they offer are generally only available online or
through
catalogues, says company president Harvey Kushner, a renowned terrorism
expert.

At Safer America, Kushner said, customers aren't ordering from a
"survivalist catalogue
where you get pepper spray and a badge and a camouflage suit and a video on
how to be a
sniper. You're buying from someplace legitimate, and we stand by what we
sell."

The shop was born when co-founder Frederic Samama wanted to purchase a gas
mask last
spring to keep at his Upper West Side apartment.

"I couldn't find a reliable source -- it's good to speak to someone, to ask
how it works and to
get training," said Samama, who left his job as a bond trader to start the
store. "The idea
came to me that retail stores of this kind should exist."

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the trade center, which killed
nearly 2,800 people,
gas mask distributors said demand multiplied because of terrorism fears. One
major Texas
distributor of military surplus items reported sales of 39,000 masks in the
month after Sept.
11, compared with 250 during the same period the year before.

Samama and Kushner say they plan to open two additional Manhattan stores.
They also
hope to keep adding to the inventory.

Kushner, a Long Island University professor and author of numerous books on
terrorism,
said the safety-conscious shopper just starting out should begin with the
basics -- a flashlight
and radio.

After that, he recommends stocking up on potassium iodide pills, which can
be taken in the
event of radiation exposure to block the thyroid gland's absorption of
radioactive iodine,
reducing the risk of thyroid cancer. A bottle of 56 pills sells for $11.

Kushner also says everyone should keep an escape hood by the bed. (He has
six at his Long
Island home.) The plastic hood with a filter is designed for one-time use to
escape from an
area where the air is not safe to breathe because of smoke or another
airborne hazard.

The shop sells hoods from $40 to $195.

In addition to selecting items separately, shoppers can purchase packages
such as the High
Rise Kit, which sells at $945 and includes a biohazard suit, potassium
iodide pills, rubber
gloves and booties, a flashlight, duct tape and a parachute.

Samama said the high-rise parachutes will open from anywhere above 10
stories but should
be considered a last resort for escaping. They start at $845.

Samama and Kushner say shopping for protection against bioterror attacks and
other
emergencies is empowering and practical. Both say it's no different from
keeping fire
extinguishers in the home.

"It used to be about paranoia, and now it's about being prepared," Samama
said. "Paranoia is
when you imagine the threat -- unfortunately, now the threat is real."

* __ On the Net: Safe America: http://www.saferamerica.com

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-terror-shopping1017oct17,0,6384901.story


--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Back to Korea too?
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:19:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Back to Korea too?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:54:51 -0600
From: mom _________ <nox2128@blackfoot.net>
Reply-To: nox2128@blackfoot.net
To: "mom-l@listserv.montana.com" <mom-l@listserv.montana.com>

BACK TO KOREA TOO?
TAKE HEED TO THE WARNINGS!
By: Dorothy Anne Seese
Published in the October 25, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.

Now that North Korea has 'fessed up to having nukes, doubtless made with the

Clinton-donated nuclear power plant supplies that he reportedly gave them in
1994 on
their "cross my heart and hope to die" promise not to use them for evil
purposes, will we
take on this nation once again?

The present administration now has another spike of its named "axis of evil"
involved in the
nuking potential. However, there is one difference -- North Korea has no
oil and it is
positioned next to Red China, so we just may not go there. Truman pulled
Douglas
MacArthur out during the "Korean Conflict" of 1949-53 and then-President
Dwight D.
Eisenhower wound the mess up with less than a stalemate. About the only
productive
thing to come out of the Korean Conflict was the comedy television series
M*A*S*H.
Fifty thousand American casualties is a very high price to pay for a
television series.

Thus we may avoid "deja vu all over again" when it comes to North Korea.
Or, China
just may prompt them into goading us into splitting our military forces into
two conflicts so
that the whole nation will be vulnerable to greater attacks on our own soil,
either by way
of terrorist activity or direct assault.

A lot of nations have nuclear weapons. It's possible for agents of any
nation to go to
Africa and get some viruses and a bottle full of mosquitoes or roaches and
spread
disease. There are endless possibilities (and if I can think them up,
surely a mind trained in
terrorism can do much, much better) so life is now more tenuous, stressful
and fear-filled
than at any other time during my 67 years here in my native land. America,
our founders
warned you to stay out of foreign entanglements and meddling in other
people's business!

Why was the warning ignored? You mean you gotta ask? MONEY!

Great wealth buys as much power as it is able to amass, because money isn't
power until it
is used to gain power. Immense fortunes were amassed by a few families in
19th century
America, by the land, banking, railroad and industrial barons. They
established
humanitarian foundations and those amassed even greater wealth while doing a
bit of
humanitarian work here and there, most of it to no avail or as a donation to
rogue regimes
that would allow them to gain even more wealth.

Look at the American businesses that have offices in Red China ... it looks
like a list of the
Fortune 500. Our government is not deceived as to China's hostility, but
where there's
money to be made, oh well ... America has a history of providing aid and
materiel to its
enemies until the day the first shot is fired, then we go to war, fighting
our own equipment
and technology, and then more money is made from the war. Loss of life is
just ...
collateral damage. Great wealth dulls the conscience and leads to an
insatiable hunger for
power and more power.

That's just what the globalist elite are doing ... they've amassed fortunes
beyond most
folks' imaginations and now they will control the planet. Nationalism?
Patriotism? Those
are now terms used by the spinners of justifying propaganda.

The elitists own the major media, the main brainwashing instrument that
gives the people
(any nation) a sense that theirs is the right cause, the "godly" mission,
the work of
government to slay all those evil dragons out there. Leaders and twit
celebrities censure
America for starving the children of places like Iraq ... while not counting
the cost of eight
palaces, a personal guard and hundreds of gallons of booze a year for the
"in" crowd.
Also ignored is the amassing of wealth gained by people like Saddam Hussein
from selling
his oil to "neutral" nations that in turn sell to anyone on the open market.

Poor Korea has nothing to sell at this point. It might drive a bargain with
US companies
for even cheaper labor than they've been getting in other Asian nations,
including land for
factories or whatever else they need. And US companies would take their
business there
just as swiftly as they took their business to Red China, Indonesia and
other places hostile
to this nation. It may be good business, but not really ... if American
industry collapses,
their businesses will feel the effects in short order.

Nonetheless, the world's economy isn't in good shape no matter how much
various entities
say that all will be well. The fact is, they don't know! This world could
be facing a
massive global depression and this writer isn't the only one saying so.
Those on the media
and those in high places of government are speaking of our strong economy
... but not
what continued high costs of war and peace, bloated government and
supporting other
nations are doing to our future, if any.

We may go to war. It may be on one or two fronts. But if we go back to
Korea ... then
total globalization of the United States will take place, whether by
economic collapse,
invasion, subversion, terrorism or "adverse possession" by hordes of aliens
(not the kind
from outer space).

I believe my Bible. I believe that these times are on the time line known
as "the last days"
but neither I nor any other living human knows when the final day of
judgment may strike.
The Lord knows, and His timing is always perfect. I can put my hope in
Jesus Christ
when all else fails and all-else seems to be failing rather rapidly, which
means it's time to
sound the alarm and keep sounding it. Christians can't fall asleep at the
wheel and yet,
many are doing just that while Islam and Communism strike blow after blow at
the pillars
of our nation's heritage and freedom, and the heritage left us by those who
respected the
Bible even if they didn't actually believe in it. The timing really isn't
man's, it is God's.

Whether North Korea has nukes, whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,
whether
some believe the Annunaki will return and others see Planet X turning the
world upside
down in 2003 or global catastrophe in 2012, all these things are just
earlier death and
demise for the planet's population. On that great day when this earth under
man's rule
does end, everything will be left behind. All that a person can take to the
other side is
what they are. Atheists may scoff but it would be interesting to have the
scientific
community verify that there is a Planet X or a giant asteroid is on a
collision course with
Earth. What was that World War II saying? "There are no atheists in
foxholes." There
might be a lot fewer of them with the world's end imminent. However, that
won't be the
way it will happen.

Here's a clue:

1Thessalonians 5:3
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh
upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

http://etherzone.com/2002/sees102502.shtml


--
-
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]


Join, the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to MOM, P.O.
Box 1486, Noxon, Montana 59853 and enclosing $15.00 for one year (Jan.1
to Dec.31)

For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect
materials visit our online Catalog at:

http://www.militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had!
Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 44 page
Preparedness Catalog.

Militia of Montana
P.O. Box 1486, Noxon,Mt. 59853
Tel: 406-847-2735 Fax; 406-847-2246

Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and
type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Libertarian International
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:39:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Roger!

I forgot to mention, Libertarian International, a sister organization
to the Libertarian Alliance, also has a site at:

http://www.libertarian.to

This might clear up a lot of question surrounding the make up and
inter-relations of this organization with others.

Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: DC Sniper Analysis
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 22:03:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: Ben Irvin <birvin@allidaho.com>, libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ben!

I have one, at least, major problem with this analysis, to wit:

> 2. A trained marksman (sniper) regards his job as the saving of
> lives.

REALLY! Or, rather who is behind the objective, or who hires him?
Who's life is he paid to protect?

> (There is at least one notable exception to this- the
> shooting of Vicki Weaver by FBI HRU sniper Lon Horiuchi- I
> personally believe that the shooting of Mrs. Weaver was an
> aberation, and NOT typical of the behavior of a professional
> marksman).

I doubt very, very much this was any aberration at all.

Why? Isn't this rather typical after all? I know I am most familiar
with this one (Ruby Ridge, Idaho, mainly because I was there), and
certainly this seems to fit a strange pattern that continued long
afterward, including the federal assault on the Branch Davidian
"compound" at Waco, Texas! All I am saying is that ideally, a sniper
might believe his/her job is saving lives. I don't believe that plays
out very well at Ruby Ridge, or at Waco, Texas!

Evidence seems to indicate that Vicki Weaver, herself, was a specific
target to be taken out! Look at the psychological profiling that
occurred prior to the murder! Killing her, obviously, didn't have one
damn thing to do with saving lives. It was a political assassination,
and the sniper had no such moral convictions he was shooting her in
the head, holding her infant daughter in her arms, and "unarmed", as a
justification for saving lives!

I would suggest simply that "a trained marksman" is hired to do the
job, whatever his boss tell him or her to do, and lives have little if
anything at all to do with it most of the time.

It also seems to me that a trained "marksman" might be able to do a
lot of other things, including using such skills at his/her own
discretion, and for whatever purpose anyone can surmise. Like
supporting a would-be and ongoing terrorist plot to destabilize the
US government, since these events are largely centred around
metropolitan Washington, DC!

The appearance of these shootings seem to point to a single weapon
being used. Marksmen are individuals, and individuals often have a
reason for the things they do. There doesn't seem to be any evidence
that I have heard, that suggests more than one weapon might be the
catalyst for these crimes. I would suggest then that there is likely
someone with a real axe to grind, perhaps political, to bringing a
sense of insecurity to the nation's capital.

I would suspect, if this was a "copycat" scenario, that such events
might be playing out elsewhere, such as New York, Los Angles, or
Chicago.

I could be wrong. But that's my best guess.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: DC Sniper Analysis
Date: 19 Oct 2002 13:43:57 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 08:03, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Ben!
>
> I have one, at least, major problem with this analysis, to wit:
>
> > 2. A trained marksman (sniper) regards his job as the saving of
> > lives.
>
> REALLY! Or, rather who is behind the objective, or who hires him?
> Who's life is he paid to protect?

Most trained snipers are in law enforcement, and are indeed trained to
minimize loss of life in hostage situations.

>
> > (There is at least one notable exception to this- the
> > shooting of Vicki Weaver by FBI HRU sniper Lon Horiuchi- I
> > personally believe that the shooting of Mrs. Weaver was an
> > aberation, and NOT typical of the behavior of a professional
> > marksman).
>
> I doubt very, very much this was any aberration at all.

Then look into it. It is very much an aberration. Trained snipers
routinely and as a matter of the job requirements wait until they can
get a shot that hits *only* the target, and not others. Most of the
time, snipers are called in for hostage situations.

> Why? Isn't this rather typical after all? I know I am most familiar
> with this one (Ruby Ridge, Idaho, mainly because I was there), and
> certainly this seems to fit a strange pattern that continued long
> afterward, including the federal assault on the Branch Davidian
> "compound" at Waco, Texas! All I am saying is that ideally, a sniper
> might believe his/her job is saving lives. I don't believe that plays
> out very well at Ruby Ridge, or at Waco, Texas!

Surely you are not suggesting that Waco was the work of snipers, when we
have footage of the ATF assaulting the place, and IR film showing people
walking in behind the armored vehicles with automatics/semi-autos in
hand and use? Most of the fed's assaults are not done with snipers, but
brute numbers of people wearing the FBI, CIA, or ATF suits.

>
> Evidence seems to indicate that Vicki Weaver, herself, was a specific
> target to be taken out! Look at the psychological profiling that
> occurred prior to the murder! Killing her, obviously, didn't have one
> damn thing to do with saving lives. It was a political assassination,
> and the sniper had no such moral convictions he was shooting her in
> the head, holding her infant daughter in her arms, and "unarmed", as a
> justification for saving lives!
>
> I would suggest simply that "a trained marksman" is hired to do the
> job, whatever his boss tell him or her to do, and lives have little if
> anything at all to do with it most of the time.

Frank, you are drawing your conclusions from such a small sample size
that it really is not a fair portrayal of snipers (in fact, I'd say it
was an unfair portrayal). All one would have to do to do the same is
take Daniel Adams and Stan Smith (and heck, let's one up and add Ryan
Davidson) and say that because of these few individuals, Libertarians
are mostly nut cases or kooks.

>
> It also seems to me that a trained "marksman" might be able to do a
> lot of other things, including using such skills at his/her own
> discretion, and for whatever purpose anyone can surmise. Like
> supporting a would-be and ongoing terrorist plot to destabilize the
> US government, since these events are largely centred around
> metropolitan Washington, DC!

Which could easily be where they live, and hence the easiest place to do
it.

> The appearance of these shootings seem to point to a single weapon
> being used. Marksmen are individuals, and individuals often have a
> reason for the things they do. There doesn't seem to be any evidence
> that I have heard, that suggests more than one weapon might be the

Nobody has suggested (that I've seen) multiple weapons, just multiple
people. I don't see Ben's email that you are responding to, so I can't
say for sure if he said multiple weapons or not.

> catalyst for these crimes. I would suggest then that there is likely
> someone with a real axe to grind, perhaps political, to bringing a
> sense of insecurity to the nation's capital.

Marksmen?? At ~100 yards/meters?? Puh-leaze! People who have never fired
or held a gun before can hit people at that range. Nearly every shot has
been at ~50 meters. Hardly a shot for a marksman or sniper.

Nearly every single shot was a head-on for the shooter, in simple
scenarios requiring no training, let alone special training. Every
target was either moving in a predictable straight line (toward the
shooter), or standing still. Those are *easy* shots. Hell, he *missed*
his first shot at 100 meters, and only taken one shot at 100 meters
since then, and the target was not moving (gas station in Manassas,
IIRC). The child shot was a center-of mass shot, because the target is
smaller it would be easier.

Sure the FBI asked the military to check their records, but they were
asking them to check for people who's application for sniper school was
*rejected*.

Only one shooting occurred in D.C. Most of them are in Maryland, and I
believe two in Virginia. What is interesting from my POV is the ease
with which they get away. It demonstrates knowledge of the area, and may
well be a delivery driver --at least the driver of the getaway vehicle.

I know the cops say the person jumps on the freeway and is gone, but I'm
not buying it. I see today that they have been asking people to watch
for "erratic drivers". I think that's a mistake. These people (one
driver/look-out one shooter) are most likely driving "normally", fitting
in with the rest of the drivers. Indeed, chances are they are only
making right turns, so as to move away quicker w/o attracting attention
(why yes, I am a former delivery driver ;). He/She/They know the area
most of the shots are in the same area. The driver/shooter may well be a
delivery driver from the area there are shopping malls there that have
furniture/pizza delivery outlets I would presume.

My guess is it is someone who was denied entry in to the ranks, and is
now trying to "prove they were wrong about me/us".

That and fifty cents might get you a cup of coffee (I don't drink Coffee
so I dunno -- I used to sell it for that though ;).

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: terror
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:25:25 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> 18 October 2002
> Federalist No. 02-42
> Friday Digest

included:

> "Perhaps the massive bomb blast on the Indonesian island of Bali
> will cause some second thoughts -- or perhaps first thoughts
> -- by those who blamed the United States for having provoked
> the September 11th attacks by its actions and policies in the
> Middle East. Very few of those killed in Bali were Americans.
> What had all the Australians, Swedes, etc., done in the Middle
> East to provoke such terrorism against innocent tourists?
> Recently Pakistani Christians were killed in a terrorist attack
> in Pakistan. What did Pakistani Christians have the power to do,
> even in Pakistan, much less in the Middle East?" --Thomas Sowell

Also from Reason Alert: Reason Associate Editor Sara Rimensnyder
explains that the terrorist attack that killed nearly 200 people in Bali
drives home this point: The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
choose your pleasure.
http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Jihad near you!
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:51:07 -0600
From: "Ben Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert Goodman observed:

> The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
> growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
> for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
> choose your pleasure.
> http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml

Although Western Civilization is the primary target of the
Islamists, since 1990, more Hindus have been murdered by
Islamists than Westerners (that includes Israel). Most of
the member of the Anti-Jihad network are Hindus and Sikhs.
Recently, many Buddhists have been joining. Islamists are at
war against all non-Moslems. Their motto is either convert or
die. Anti-Jihad: http://www.Anti-Jihad.cjb.net .

Ben

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Jihad near you!
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:56:07 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote to everyone to Robert Goodman...

In which Robert Goodman wrote:
> > The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
> > growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
> > for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
> > choose your pleasure.
> > http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml

Well, maybe some think this may be the underlying criteria, but there
is plenty of evidence to suggest that other islamic states aren't
playing this same music, at least from the same page. I can think of
quite a few: Morocco, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Egypt,
Malaysia, probably Pakistan, and several others.

You replied:
> Although Western Civilization is the primary target of the
> Islamists, since 1990

The date you mention here is interesting. Exactly what happened,
around that time, that might have signalled a shift in emphasis
against the west? Of course a lot of things were taking place prior to
that, such as the then recent dissolution of the former Soviet Union
and the Iron Curtain, and the end of the Reagan era in US politics.
Major shifts such as realigning interests against an enemy usually
don't take place in a vacuum. What really happened in and around the
turn of the decade of 1990 that might have precipitated such a shift
in sentiment toward islamic revulsion toward the west?

> more Hindus have been murdered by
> Islamists than Westerners (that includes Israel). Most of
> the member of the Anti-Jihad network are Hindus and Sikhs.

Although Indonesia is admittedly the largest muslim country on earth,
this doesn't discount the fact that India has a very large islamic
population, although greatly in the minority overall. Maybe this, the
large number of muslims in the minority, and the extent in which India
is at odds with Pakistan, may have something to do with the carnage
against Hindus. This probably doesn't have very much to do at all
with the shift in islamic sentiment against the west.

All I am suggesting here is that maybe we need to examine how the
"west" has shifted and become a provocation against what many muslims
might believe is an attack upon themselves, and their interests. I
doubt very much the "India" equation tells us very much in that
regard.

> Recently, many Buddhists have been joining. Islamists are at
> war against all non-Moslems. Their motto is either convert or
> die. Anti-Jihad: http://www.Anti-Jihad.cjb.net .

Maybe some are. And if that number may be increasing, we need to ask
some real hard questions here. What have we done, to make that
inevitable? If you believe that the west is currently the "victim" of
aggression, it seems to me that we need to take a look at recorded
history written by historians in the Christian civilization during the
last 1,500 years or so!

This "war" could get pretty damn ugly real quick. I am not convinced
this war needs to be fought at all. Admittedly though, it will take a
hurclean effort on the part of a lot of people to defuse all of this.
The present US administration along with its predecessors, doesn't
have a really great track record in dealing with such cultural or
religious differences. In fact, we've spent the greater part of the
last century distancing ourselves from any religious commentary at
all. We are probably the worst nation on earth for even recognizing
that religion has a giant role in recorded history! Which is why
public education has largely been relegated to the sidelines in real
issues in which Americans just don't understand, and most likely can't
understand.

What do you do with people who really will die for their own beliefs?
What do you do with people who have "faith" principles that guide
their own lives and choices? Americans as a whole obviously don't have
any. How can we ever deal with cultures and people who do? I can only
say this, the US State Department won't deal with it in a pragmatic or
practical level. It's essentially bared from doing so under current
policies regarding the separation of religion and state.

I know this raises a lot of questions, but Americans by and large at
all levels, aren't prepared to deal with this. Which is why we may
ultimately lose. I've noticed you are raising several questions here,
almost all of them have to do with religious tension. I am not so
sure the US government is very well suited to deal with such a
contingency. You've mentioned several categories here: Hindus,
Muslims, and "others" (supposedly Christian and everyone else,
including Jews) against a radical growth in Islamic fundamentalism.

It's interesting to me that the west can't and won't deal with that in
a way that can define an individual nation's right to exist under
their own self determined choices! If you define secularization as a
religion, then I have real problems here, because it simply has no
defining definition. I've seen some problem definitions imposed, but
they lack any credibility, since it refuses to acknowledge the
"religion" of individuals. The US doesn't have a giant track record
of protecting such rights either, such as at Ruby Ridge, or Waco! When
such problems arise, it is resolved only under the use of tremendous
force.

So, if we ultimately lose this war, this battle, it will be largely
because we have no purpose that is definitive. The hearts, minds, and
souls of others who do have a principle, will likely ultimately win
the day, because they are willing to fight, die, and sacrifice
themselves for the sake of such principles.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Jihad near you!
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:39:49 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 21:56 10/20/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Ben!
>
>Ben Irvin wrote to everyone to Robert Goodman...
>
>In which Robert Goodman wrote:
> > > The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
> > > growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
> > > for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
> > > choose your pleasure.
> > > http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml
>
>Well, maybe some think this may be the underlying criteria, but there
>is plenty of evidence to suggest that other islamic states aren't
>playing this same music, at least from the same page. I can think of
>quite a few: Morocco, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Egypt,
>Malaysia, probably Pakistan, and several others.

Yes, currently the governments in these countries are trying to work
themselves away from the radical elements of Islam. However, I know that
most of them have radical Islamic parties vying for power or there are
plenty of individuals within those countries that are getting together to
cause trouble as terrorists. (And I suspect that the ones I don't know
about (like the Soviet republics) have plenty of the same things going on
there as well.)

>You replied:
> > Although Western Civilization is the primary target of the
> > Islamists, since 1990
>
>The date you mention here is interesting. Exactly what happened,
>around that time, that might have signalled a shift in emphasis
>against the west? Of course a lot of things were taking place prior to
>that, such as the then recent dissolution of the former Soviet Union
>and the Iron Curtain, and the end of the Reagan era in US politics.
>Major shifts such as realigning interests against an enemy usually
>don't take place in a vacuum. What really happened in and around the
>turn of the decade of 1990 that might have precipitated such a shift
>in sentiment toward islamic revulsion toward the west?

Satellite TV? :-) Seriously, the author Frank is responding to is
acknowledging a bit of a sea-change in the relationship between Western
Civ. and Islam that dates to around 1990. However, the author's point
(which Frank appears to have totally missed) is that "since 1990 more
Hindus have been murdered by Islamists than Westerners". (C'mon Frank,
read and understand the *whole* sentence before popping off on your latest
holy war against "American Imperialism"--is that really too much to ask?)

> > more Hindus have been murdered by
> > Islamists than Westerners (that includes Israel). Most of
> > the member of the Anti-Jihad network are Hindus and Sikhs.
>
>Although Indonesia is admittedly the largest muslim country on earth,
>this doesn't discount the fact that India has a very large islamic
>population, although greatly in the minority overall. Maybe this, the
>large number of muslims in the minority, and the extent in which India
>is at odds with Pakistan, may have something to do with the carnage
>against Hindus. This probably doesn't have very much to do at all
>with the shift in islamic sentiment against the west.

The carnage against the Hindus goes back to the moment that Islam expanded
into contact with the Hindu world. There may have been occasional
"breathers" such as, for instance, when British technology and organization
created a certain amount of peace within India--although even then, there
still seemed to be plenty of interreligious warring.

I suspect that the reason for more Hindu deaths is the fact that Muslim
technology and Hindu technology is about the same--a situation which has
not existed between Islam and the West for at least 500 years.

>All I am suggesting here is that maybe we need to examine how the
>"west" has shifted and become a provocation against what many muslims
>might believe is an attack upon themselves, and their interests. I
>doubt very much the "India" equation tells us very much in that
>regard.

Well, here's the argument:

1. The "India" equation hasn't changed much in the last 50 years.
2. There has been a change in the West in the last 12 years.
3. There are still more Hindus than Westerners being murdered by Muslims.
Therefore: it is unlikely that the change vs. the West had any real effect
on Muslim reactions to the West.

The fact that you don't like the conclusion of the argument doesn't allow
you to say it is irrelevant.

> > Recently, many Buddhists have been joining. Islamists are at
> > war against all non-Moslems. Their motto is either convert or
> > die. Anti-Jihad: http://www.Anti-Jihad.cjb.net .
>
>Maybe some are. And if that number may be increasing, we need to ask
>some real hard questions here. What have we done, to make that
>inevitable? If you believe that the west is currently the "victim" of
>aggression, it seems to me that we need to take a look at recorded
>history written by historians in the Christian civilization during the
>last 1,500 years or so!

Yes, let's do that. Ireland was converted by Christian missionaries (St.
Patrick gets all the credit). Same with the Scandinavian countries
(although since they went Protestant, we don't remember the
missionaries--although Santa Lucia celebrations remember the life and
sacrifice of an early Christian in Sweden). Same with Russia and, I
believe Poland and Germany. Going back earlier, much of the "Holy Roman
Empire" had already partially converted to Christianity through the efforts
of sometimes persecuted, sometimes tolerated missionaries. These
missionaries went into Africa, India, and some even reached parts of
China. When the "New World" was discovered, missionaries again went out
with the soldiers, adventurers and conquerors to convert the native peoples
in these lands. Since these missionaries were part of the culture that had
a dominant military technology, they behaved much more arrogantly and less
kindly than their predecessors in trying to "civilize" as well as
religiously convert. The same could be said (although to a lesser extent)
of the next wave of missionaries that went out from the "New World" into
the South Pacific and East Asia. Also, the Christian tradition spawned
numerous sects and groups that forswore war and fighting. From the Quakers
to the Mennonites to the Amish and Hutterites, pacifism has been held as a
moral duty. Not only that, but other Christian groups, while disagreeing,
came to respect the rights of these groups to hold and act on these
opinions.

In that history, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the wars among the
groups themselves stand out as aberrations. And most Western historians
will say that the Crusades and the wars of the Reformation were as much a
matter of politics wrapped in religious clothing as anything else. The
first, (and most successful) Crusade was undertaken at a time when it
seemed just a matter of time before Islam would conquer all of Europe. In
strictly military terms, it was an attempt to go strategically on offense
and take the initiative away from the enemy (in this case, Islam) by
attacking the enemy's center.

Now, take the history of Islam, please. Mohammed was a fighting prophet, a
warrior. (I'm not going to go as far as Falwell by saying that he was a
terrorist, because I am unaware of any actions taken by Mohammed that would
qualify as "terrorism"--particularly in the context of the time and place
in which he found himself.) Islam expanded almost entirely due to
battlefield conquest--both to the east and to the west. Non-muslims in
conquered lands were "tolerated" with taxes of 80-150% of income. I'm sure
there were Muslim "missionaries". But in the grand scheme of Islamic
history, I'm also sure that they are as "aberrant" as (if not more than)
the "aberrations" I noted in Christian history.

In other words, Christian history is one of mainly peaceful conversion
while Islamic history is one of mainly battlefield conquest and
conversion. The west has always been a victim of Islamic aggression
whenever an Islamic leader thought he was strong enough to sustain the
aggression. What little "Christian aggression" there was worked out to be
retaking some of what had been lost to earlier Islamic
aggression. (Whether that meant kicking the Muslims out of Sicily,
retaking Jerusalem, kicking the Muslims out of Spain, or taking back parts
of the Austrian empire.)

>This "war" could get pretty damn ugly real quick.

You mean it hasn't already?

> I am not convinced
>this war needs to be fought at all.

I'm curious about what it would take to convince you. Time is reporting
that UBL had told some friends that there would be two strikes. The first
one would be "this big" (pointing to the tip of a finger) and the second
would be "this big" (pointing to the whole finger). The first one put
50,000 Americans at risk plus the military command, plus either the
President or the Congress. You do the math for what the second one would
be.

> Admittedly though, it will take a
>hurclean effort on the part of a lot of people to defuse all of this.
>The present US administration along with its predecessors, doesn't
>have a really great track record in dealing with such cultural or
>religious differences. In fact, we've spent the greater part of the
>last century distancing ourselves from any religious commentary at
>all. We are probably the worst nation on earth for even recognizing
>that religion has a giant role in recorded history! Which is why
>public education has largely been relegated to the sidelines in real
>issues in which Americans just don't understand, and most likely can't
>understand.

Actually Frank, in our open society, we probably have a better
understanding of them than they do of us.

>What do you do with people who really will die for their own beliefs?

The same thing we did to the Japanese Kamikazes. Give them all possible
assistance in meeting their goal. :-)

>What do you do with people who have "faith" principles that guide
>their own lives and choices? Americans as a whole obviously don't have
>any.

Thank you, Frank, for that detour into bigotry. "Americans as a whole"
seem to disagree with Frank. Therefore, Frank concludes that they
"obviously don't have any" "'faith' principles that guide their own lives
and choices." Perhaps "larry" doesn't think we *should* have any (or at
least that our "principles" shouldn't be based on "faith"), but that
doesn't mean we *don't*!

> ...

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: [LPNY DISCUSS] Saddam Hussein will fall soon
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:30:57 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: <sloan@ishipress.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.iraq,talk.politics.mideast,rec.games.chess.politics,talk.pol
itics.libertarian,alt.politics.bush,soc.culture.pakistan
To: <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>; <Pashtu-Pashto@yahoogroups.com>;
<contemplibissues@yahoogroups.com>; <kiseido@yk.rim.or.jp>;
<sloan@ishipress.com>; <nagaflas@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: [LPNY DISCUSS] Saddam Hussein will fall soon

> Saddam Hussein will fall soon
>
> I have never said this before, but now I believe that the regime of
> Saddam Hussein is about to collapse. In a matter of months, and
> possibly even in a matter of weeks or days, Saddam Hussein will be
> gone.
>
> The turning point will be the events of yesterday, when Saddam Hussein
> opened his prison doors. The notorious Abu Gharib jail on Baghdad's
> outskirts, one square mile in area, that was believed to hold between
> 100,000 and 150,000 prisoners, was virtually empty today.
>
> Saddam Hussein has remained in power by heading the most repressive
> government in the world, a government that does not hesitate to
> imprison and execute its citizens. Some of the prisoners released
> yesterday have been inside for 20 or 30 years. After their massive
> release, the people will no longer fear their government and you can
> be sure that Saddam Hussein will be overthrown soon.
>
> What is most surprising is that the massive release of more than
> 100,000 prisoners has just appeared as a blip in the news. It is not
> even listed as among the top news stories of the day.
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://www.samsloan.com/saddams.htm
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Is your business paying to much?
> Affordable insurance and benefits packages for Less.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/jCP0DB/E.mEAA/jd3IAA/8zNplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
->
>
> ~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
> ~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~
>
> To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
> lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:28:51 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> Why is an article on a website devoted to providing
> the evidence and arguments for why abortion is wrong
> considered a "tract"? Are all articles on websites
> that provide evidence and arguments explaining why
> abortion should be legal "tracts"? Are all articles
> on websites that present any philosophical or ethical
> point of view "tracts"?

Yes.

> > The situation is exacly like
> > that explained in a LFL article from some time back,
> > subtitled
> > approximately, "A Conclusion In Search of A
> > Rationale". People make a
> > normative judgement first, then try to prove the
> > facts back them up.
>
> What is your point in saying this? Humans invariably
> have judgments that they believe are "true" which they
> then try to back up with evidence and logic. Much of
> the debate about when life begins is a prime example
> of this tendency. People who want abortion to be
> legal invariably say things like no one knows when
> "human life" begins or say life begins sometime long
> after conception.

No, not invariably. And see below.

> People who think abortion should be
> illegal invariably believe life begins at conception.

Not all of them do, not invariably. I think many of them don't even
waste their time considering when "life begins". If I were
anti-abortion, I wouldn't waste time on that question. I think some of
them may think "life begins" at some other time, but find that
irrelevant in forming their opinion.

> If you think the arguments on Doris's site are wrong,

I don't think the particular arguments being referred to in this thread
are necessarily wrong, just irrelevant and of little significance in
general.

> the proper way to critique them is not to call them
> "tracts" or say that the writers reached judgments
> first and then found facts and evidence to back up
> those opinions (probably some of them did - but if so,
> so what?). What you do is look at the arguments and
> find where the logical and factual errors are.

Sure, I could do that. I might agree or disagree, and I might find the
writing amusing or otherwise engaging. But in terms of making up my
mind I'd simply consider it a waste of time.

That's not to say NOTHING at Doris's site (or in the leaflets) is
relevant, or that there are no factual questions that help form my
opinion on abortions. It's just that THIS question is a silly semantic
one.

This is like judging the worth of catalytic converters on automobile
exhaust systems by trying to figure out whether a tailpipe hanger is
part of the exhaust system or part of the car's body. Even if someone
came up with convincing reasons why it'd be better to consider it part
of one than part of the other, who cares?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:11:36 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> Robert: We use real biology books, not tracts
such as above.
>
> Doris: Have you read her "tract?" ["When Do
Human Beings Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and
Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving. The article is
available on my website.] My guess is that you are
belittling it sight unseen.

Robert: I've probably read it some time. I think I've
read all of LFL's stuff over the years.

Doris: You don't sound as if you have read, let
alone remember, it. It's one of our newer articles.
It was published in 1999.

Robert: But I am belittling it in effect sight unseen,
just because of its setting.

Doris: You sound like a snob. Is it your custom to
judge a book by its cover?

Robert: It's a tract.

Doris: People who resort to ad hominem comments
are sending the message that they lack a good
argument.

Robert: The situation is exacly like that explained
in a LFL article from some time back, subtitled
approximately, "A Conclusion In Search of A
Rationale".

Doris: "The 'Right of Abortion': A Dogma in Search
of a Rationale" was written by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Robert: People make a normative judgement first,
then try to prove the facts back them up.

Doris: Not necessarily. I did it the other way.
Remember, originally, I was an abortion choicer. I
began by asking myself a series off questions. It
was the answers that I arrived at that pushed me
to the pro-life side. See my article, "How I Became
Pro-Life: Remarks on Abortion, Parental Obligation,
and the Draft."

In his article, Vieira showed why Murray
Rothbard's, Tibor Machan's, and Walter Block's
articles were searches for a rationale. You haven't
shown the search for a rationale charge to be true
of LFL's writings; you've only thrown it at us,
unsupported.

Doris: Is your biology textbook written by a
*human* embryologist?

Robert: It's about humans. We use it for the
Introduction To Human Biology course.

Doris: You didn't answer my question.

Is the author of your biology textbook a human
embryologist? Yes or no?

> Robert: Ours says, "It is important to remember,
however, that life is not a series of stop-and-start
events or individual and isolated periods of time.
Instead, it is a biological process that is
characterized by continuous modification and
change."
>
> Doris: How was the author using "life" here? 1)
Was he talking of the life of an individual entity? 2)
Or did he mean "life" in a general sense, such as
old life generates new life and that this process
has been ongoing from ancestor to descendent for
eons?

Robert: The first.

Doris: Then the author is agreeing with LFL that an
individual human being's life "is a biological
process that is characterized by continuous
modification and change."

Doris: If Life 1, when does he think that a new
being's own life begins? Frank was talking of Life
1.

Robert: The authors explain that life can be divided
into various periods, but then add the caution
above.

Doris: Those divisions are artificial, not natural,
divisions.

Again, you have not answered my question --
"when does he think that a new being's own life
begins?"

> Doris: As I read you Robert, you switched
contexts. You changed the topic from Life 1 to
Life 2. Evolution is about Life 2, not Life 1, a
distinction that even Ph.D.'s in biochemistry should
know.

Robert: If you've been following the thread, you
should realize I've been discussing both. Frank
asked about HUMAN life, so I pointed out that
involves 2 determinations -- one of life in general,
the other of human or non-human.

Doris: I didn't follow the whole thread; I jumped in
when I noticed that you had switched contexts
from when does an individual human being begin
(Frank's question) to the issue of an evolutionary
change from non-human to human. Given such a
change, the progression then goes from old human
being to new human being. The connecting, or
missing, link in evolution is irrelevant to what's the
marker for when new human beings begin their
own lives.

Going by your e-mails over the years, your
preferred methods of response it to change
contexts, to evade questions, and to prejudge
arguments. I've also noticed that you use nitpicks
to go off on a tangent.

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:33:27 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Doris

> Going by your e-mails over the years, your
> preferred methods of response it to change
> contexts, to evade questions, and to prejudge
> arguments. I've also noticed that you use nitpicks
> to go off on a tangent.

Well, here is a question that I hope you do not
evade.

What page from your website can you produce that
shows that abortion should not be allowed without
begging the question or appealing to metaphysics?

Regards
Tim

Ben-Hur
Messala: You live on dead dreams. You live on the myths of the past.
The glory of Soloman is gone. Do you think it will return?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:45:31 -0400
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: rape and violence

> Doris
>
> > Going by your e-mails over the years, your
> > preferred methods of response it to change
> > contexts, to evade questions, and to prejudge
> > arguments. I've also noticed that you use nitpicks
> > to go off on a tangent.
>
> Well, here is a question that I hope you do not
> evade.
>
> What page from your website can you produce that
> shows that abortion should not be allowed without
> begging the question

What evidence do you have that LFL has begged the question?

> or appealing to metaphysics?

What problem is it that you see with metaphysics?

It's necessary to the discussion of the philosophical (not scientific)
question of the concept "person."

Doris Gordon, Libertarians for Life
LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org
-- If you find any serious or fatal flaws
there, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:00:44 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Doris

> > What page from your website can you produce that
> > shows that abortion should not be allowed without
> > begging the question

> What evidence do you have that LFL has begged the question?

This avoids the question.

I will ask it again. What page from your website can
you produce that gives a reasoned argument that
abortion should be prohibited without begging the
question?

I thought you just criticised Robert for evading
questions. Now you are doing the same.

Regards
Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:26:52 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Okay, I can agree with that. Might you consider then that word games,
> or plays on words might be one form of mud slinging to defuse an
> argument postulated by a political opponent -- maybe in an effort to
> show his/her ignorance? Think about it.

No, the mud-slinging is accusing others of playing word
games without having the evidence to back it up.

This looks like what you are doing.

> Well, often it ticks me off when I make a strong case, and have spent
> considerable time working on it, when someone replies with a
> "one-liner" grammatical error, misspelled word, or a play on words
> to defuse the case "that I really made!", which is otherwise very
> clear if anyone can speak english at all!

This is the problem I find with you, Frank. I never find you
very clear and when Bill tries to pin you down (as he
did in the example below), you get angry. You then start
throwing around accusations of "game playing".

You never seem to get past the anger to the substantive point.

Will you now commit to the challenge of making yourself
more clear in future and not throwing around the
accusation of "playing games" if you are not willing
to explain exactly what you mean by that?

I appreciate that you might find it hard work but
for me the devil is in the detail.

Here is an example from you, Frank, where
I cannot find any games at all.

Bill
> Oh, and one last time, one can not be "willingly violated" look it up
> for crying out loud.

Frank
> I don't have to look it up. You should, on principle alone, know the
> difference. {another word "look up" dictionary reason to call "rape"
> a "rape"). No, I don't care to play such games anymore. You
> play 'em!

This just reads to me that you refuse to explain whether you might
be wrong on "willingly violated". So, you resort to mindless
accusations of game playing.

It is easy to smear Bill as you have done.

It is also easy to smear Tony Blair as a poodle.

The challenge here on libnw is to be able to explain
what one means clearly without hype. That is how it
seem to me at any rate.

When all I see from you is anger, Frank, I wonder
why anyone at all would want to dialogue.

Regards
Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:38:03 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com> wrote in part:

> > Doris: Have you read her "tract?" ["When Do
> Human Beings Begin?: 'Scientific' Myths and
> Scientific Facts," by Dianne N. Irving. The article is
> available on my website.] My guess is that you are
> belittling it sight unseen.
>
> Robert: I've probably read it some time. I think I've
> read all of LFL's stuff over the years.
>
> Doris: You don't sound as if you have read, let
> alone remember, it. It's one of our newer articles.
> It was published in 1999.

Then I'll probably get around to it some time. Or I may have already,
and it didn't leave such an impression.

> Robert: But I am belittling it in effect sight unseen,
> just because of its setting.
>
> Doris: You sound like a snob. Is it your custom to
> judge a book by its cover?

No, more by the portion of the library it's in. OK, that's a glib
answer, but approxiamtely true in this case. My main response is mostly
in another e-mail in this thread, which is that discussion of when human
life, or an individual human life, or life per se, begins is a waste of
time & effort.

> In his article, Vieira showed why Murray
> Rothbard's, Tibor Machan's, and Walter Block's
> articles were searches for a rationale.

And he's right about that! Well, except possibly re Tibor. But that's
because of Murray's & Walter's type of analysis ("natural law/rights"),
which NEEDS a rationale like that, which I reject.

> Is the author of your biology textbook a human
> embryologist? Yes or no?

Lesee...no, none of the authors or contributors are listed as
embryologists. Of course I have books on human embryology too, but
they're above the level of the course I teach, and therefore could not
satisfy Frank's demand of what every high school biology student
supposedly knows or is taught.

> Going by your e-mails over the years, your
> preferred methods of response it to change
> contexts, to evade questions, and to prejudge
> arguments. I've also noticed that you use nitpicks
> to go off on a tangent.

Yeah, yeah. All I know is that I consistently have a better handle on
the flow of a thread than others. I try to answer the relevant points,
when I have any answer, regardless of what other people keep trying to
say the discussion is supposed to be about, even as the thread drifts.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:05:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Doris Gordon...

Doris Gordon inquired:
> > Going by your e-mails over the years, your
> > preferred methods of response it to change
> > contexts, to evade questions, and to prejudge
> > arguments. I've also noticed that you use nitpicks
> > to go off on a tangent.

And, you responded:
> Yeah, yeah. All I know is that I consistently have a better handle on
> the flow of a thread than others. I try to answer the relevant points,
> when I have any answer, regardless of what other people keep trying to
> say the discussion is supposed to be about, even as the thread drifts.

How sanctimonious can you get Robert? This is about as "far" a reach
as
I've ever watched you go! YOU, sir! have a better handle on the flow
of this thread than anyone else! My God! You're basically saying here
that all others who respond to this thread are inferior to you. Thank
you very much! So, anything, and everything that I contribute to this
thread is discounted, according to your infinite wisdom. Your use of
the words: "other people" is troubling at best, since you seem to see
yourself as the absolute authority in this discussion.

Well, others here may have a real problem in dealing with your
self-aggrandizement efforts, at least I know for damn sure *I* do!

Maybe a time for introspection Robert.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:44:03 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> My God! You're basically saying here
> that all others who respond to this thread are inferior to you.
> Thank you very much! So, anything, and everything that I contribute
> to this thread is discounted, according to your infinite wisdom.

Well, equality under the law does not mean that all people
are actually equal.

They are not. People have different abilities and attributes.

If you want someone on your chess team, you could pick me
or you could pick Garry Kasparov.

I freely admit that I am inferior to Garry in this regard.

In Robert's defense, I do not think he was trying to annoy
you, Frank.

I think he was merely responding to criticism with his
own view of his participation, a reasonable action to
take I would suggest. I hope you would agree with me
there.

I wonder whether you might find your participation
here more enjoyable if you follow a piece of advise
that (I think) is in Catholic teaching, namely to
put the best possible construction upon the actions
of others.

If you think in those terms, you may find you seem
to have more friends and less enemies.

To quote Babylon 5, beauty and the beast are in the
eye of the beholder.

Just an idea that occurs to me as I read you and
one meant in the best possible spirit of trying
to be helpful. Apologies if it offends.

Regards
Tim

In the beginning
Lenonn: Rumours are at the core of what we do. I've learned
that the more vehemently a rumour is denied, the more
often it tends to be true

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

--- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> Doris
>
> > > What page from your website can you produce that
> > > shows that abortion should not be allowed
> without
> > > begging the question
>
> > What evidence do you have that LFL has begged the
> question?
>
> This avoids the question.
>
> I will ask it again. What page from your website can
> you produce that gives a reasoned argument that
> abortion should be prohibited without begging the
> question?
>
> I thought you just criticised Robert for evading
> questions. Now you are doing the same.
>
> Regards
> Tim

Tim,

Robert routinely refuses to answer simple yes or no
questions - questions like "do you believe such and
such?" Then he gets upset when people don't answer
questions he asks that require book length answers.

The question you are asking Doris seems to me to be
one of the very broad, very vague questions that
Robert likes to ask. When your previous posts
indicate that you don't understand some of the basic
L4L positions, I wouldn't be the least surprised if
Doris doesn't consider it worth her time to try to
figure out what you're asking and then attempt to
compose what would certainly be a very lengthy and
detailed response.

Just because you ask a question, doesn't mean that you
deserve an answer. If the question you're asking
Doris is a serious one, at a minimum you need to 1)
clarify what question you think is being begged and 2)
analyze an essay or two from the site that you think
begs the question to illustrate what flaw you think
mars all of the articles on the site.

The message you posted yesterday after this one may
have been an attempt to clarify your question, but
after reading that post a couple of times I still
can't figure out what you're asking. I don't think
referring to a single sentence from an essay (and then
saying the whole thing begs some question) is
adequate; you really need to critique the entire
article to clarify how/why you think all the articles
on the site are just "begging" some question.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: rape and violence
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:18:11 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I wrote to Robert Goodman:
> > My God! You're basically saying here
> > that all others who respond to this thread are inferior to you.
> > Thank you very much! So, anything, and everything that I contribute
> > to this thread is discounted, according to your infinite wisdom.

You replied:
> Well, equality under the law does not mean that all people
> are actually equal.

What? You mean, the law ought to favour one group of people over
others in terms of equal justice? You're being very vague here.

> They are not. People have different abilities and attributes.

So what? Because someone has lesser abilities or "attributes" (not
explained by you very well), they should be denied "justice" under the
law? So, the converse of this must be true in your thinking, that is,
if someone has "higher" more developed abilities and attributes, the
law should be more forthcoming in providing protection against
aggression and injustice? Is that what you are saying? No, to defuse
other possible remarks, I'm not building a strawman here, only trying
to get a grasp on your use of words.

> If you want someone on your chess team, you could pick me
> or you could pick Garry Kasparov.

So, how does that have to deal with equality under law? Because a
person doesn't know how to play chess very well, or is a jew, gypsy or
undesirable, should he/she be denied equal access for protection under
law or not?

> In Robert's defense, I do not think he was trying to annoy
> you, Frank.

Well, irrelevant word games always annoy me. I try not to dwell on
them much, and now rarely even respond to them much anymore.

> I think he was merely responding to criticism with his
> own view of his participation, a reasonable action to
> take I would suggest. I hope you would agree with me
> there.

Not necessarily so. I have my reasons, over several years of dialogue
with Robert. He is free to post as such, and I am free to ignore and
move on if I choose to do so. But his words, and my response to such
words, were very clear, and I have no apology to make, sorry.

> I wonder whether you might find your participation
> here more enjoyable if you follow a piece of advise
> that (I think) is in Catholic teaching, namely to
> put the best possible construction upon the actions
> of others.

Well, that might be fine and good. However, I am not here for the
purpose of enjoyment. I am a libertarian political activist, and my
main concern is to discuss various issues accordingly. If I want to
have a good time and enjoy myself, I'll go to a picnic with friends or
relatives and forget about such things. Liberty Northwest exists as a
discussion forum for the purpose of promoting libertarian idealism.
That's what I do here. It gets into a lot of areas, and that is what
libertarians do, we get into everything. Should I apologize for
that? In that, it can be fun, and often too, it can be hell. But the
object for me, in any case, is to be consistent and talk about my
opinions in relation to human liberty, self-choices, and personal
responsibility. It's not my only world, but on Liberty Northwest it
is. That's the purpose of this forum. If I wanted to discuss cooking
oriental cuisine, I'd participate on a such a forum, and probably
would be nicer and less aggressive to some in such an environment.

> If you think in those terms, you may find you seem
> to have more friends and less enemies.

Well, as my uncle once told me when I entered the Navy (he was from
WWII) -- Frank, in the Navy, there are two things you never discuss:
(1) Religion, and (2) politics. Such conversations only bring
conflict and friction. Well, guess what? Liberty Northwest is a
Libertarian group, and both politics and religion often are on the top
of the list insofar as topics for discussion take place.

I guess, if I wanted to just make friends and just have a nice day,
I'd also devote more time to other groups more concerned about fluff
and circumstance! Surprised! Yes, I am not only devoted to
libertarian discussion groups. I also subscribe to various other
groups, such as "alternative power" and "foreign living" and a whole
lot more. But THIS sir is Liberty Northwest, and the issue here is
liberty and libertarian idealism! In such discussions, friction is
likely going to happen along the way. But this isn't the Navy, and I
am not aboard ship. It's an ongoing struggle to defend and support a
way of life, one in which I feel very strongly about, as others do.

> To quote Babylon 5, beauty and the beast are in the
> eye of the beholder.

Well Tim, when I write here, I write on liberty issues, and it is in
the eye of the beholder. Me! In this, I am not trying to make
personal enemies either. But friction will occur, always in most
subject lines. It comes with the territory. I've accepted that now
for over a decade. You've been here, off and on, for most of that
period as I recall.

> Just an idea that occurs to me as I read you and
> one meant in the best possible spirit of trying
> to be helpful. Apologies if it offends.

Trust me. You are not offending me at all. Thanks in fact, for the
constructive criticism, I do appreciate it. If you doubt that, write
me in private email, and I'll discuss anything you wish to discuss
privately why I do the things I do.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A Deadly Trap
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:14:11 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

On the page
http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html
it says,

"To conceive and then abort one's child - even by
mere eviction - is to turn conception into a deadly
trap for the child."

However, this sentence, like all of them on the same
page as far as I can see, merely assumes what L4L
wishes to prove, namely that a foetus should be
considered a person from the moment of conception.

Once you have established that it follows that
you want to protect people from harm.

Has anyone found a place on that website that
establishes that legal-rights-personhood should rightly
start at conception (personhood - not scientific human
life as defined by science text books)?

Scientific text books cannot establish ethics
only facts.

Science cannot prove that a foetus deserve protection.
Science can prove that a foetus has DNA.

Science cannot prove that a specific right exists.

Regards
Tim

A New Hope
Darth Vader: The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but
the learner. Now I am the master.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a master of evil, Darth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:49:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote in response to "abor-rts.html"...

> On the page
> http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html
> it says,

> "To conceive and then abort one's child - even by
> mere eviction - is to turn conception into a deadly
> trap for the child."

> However, this sentence, like all of them on the same
> page as far as I can see, merely assumes what L4L
> wishes to prove, namely that a foetus should be
> considered a person from the moment of conception.

You're adding some words that make this argument much more cloudy than
I believe it ought to be. You're talking about "a person" -- and I
suggest it is both right, but nevertheless might be misleading.
Substitute the phrase "a person" with "a human life" and it is far
more clear that you are talking about another individual human life.
So-called "personhood" has a lot of complications. You can get into
all kinds of useless metaphysical and philosophical arguments about
"what" constitutes a person. It is far more clear when you talk about
another unique and individual "human life", even at a very early stage
in human development. Why cloud the issue with useless and imprecise
language?

> Once you have established that it follows that
> you want to protect people from harm.

Well yes, and no. Not if you take "people" in the sense of a developed
human personality, which is why some like to use "personhood" and all
of the explanations that philosophy, metaphysics and other disciplines
employ in such meanings. It is true that personality is exhibited
scientifically long prior to an actual birth -- but getting into that
can of worms isn't necessary, and is indeed counterproductive to
resolving the notion of protecting "human life" itself.

> Has anyone found a place on that website that
> establishes that legal-rights-personhood should rightly
> start at conception (personhood - not scientific human
> life as defined by science text books)?

That is irrelevant to the question at hand. Legal rights are codified
law, made by some human beings, that may impact morally or immorally
against other human beings. The question isn't whether or not it is
embodied in legal code, or becomes statute law, but rather the moral
issue of protecting human life. It's a moral question, which some
believe is an absolute question, against subjective use of codified
law. Hitler had codified law, and he killed 6 million jews and
gypsies and, assorted other undesirables as identified by "law".

> Scientific text books cannot establish ethics
> only facts.

Agreed.

> Science cannot prove that a foetus deserve protection.
> Science can prove that a foetus has DNA.

Agreed.

> Science cannot prove that a specific right exists.

Strongly disagree! It depends entirely upon how you define science. I
believe logically we can determine what has been a long-standing
tradition amongst almost all recorded human civilization that some
things are morally wrong, and some things are morally right, and vice
versa. That's part of linguistic and social science, but it is just as
accurate as any other science. Do you remember Rene Descarte, the
father of modern western philosophy? His famous finding was: "I
think, therefore, I am." proved his own existence. For me at least,
that is the very genius of science as applied to a rational approach
to human thought and even natural law itself if you follow his
argument out further.

You can call this a lot of things, but the one that might be most
universally accepted is "natural law", what can be derived from nature
itself, human nature itself as recorded and evidenced in human history
as essential to morality and survival. Yes, natural law exists because
it has been recorded as such, and it can therefore be explored and
examined empirically, just as biological science can easily determine
that human life always exhibits itself individual everytime a human
pregnancy occurs.

When you use the word "science", I wonder how you define such? Science
exists in a lot of disciplines other than physics and biology. In
fact science has its own definition which really transcends various
disciplines. But for you to suggest that "science" cannot prove that
specific right(s) exist, is at best a misnomer, because perhaps you
refuse to examine recorded history in a scientific fashion.

Historical human cultural history is just as much a product of natural
science as anything else is. As such, we can talk about concrete
natural law in terms of what has universally been accepted as such to
define humanity, rights, and what constitutes human morality and
immorality.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:06:51 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> You can call this a lot of things, but the one that might be most
> universally accepted is "natural law", what can be derived from
> nature itself, human nature itself as recorded and evidenced in
> human history
> as essential to morality and survival. Yes, natural law exists
> because it has been recorded as such, and it can therefore be
> explored and
> examined empirically, just as biological science can easily
> determine that human life always exhibits itself individual
> everytime a human pregnancy occurs.

Well, unfortunately for you, natural law is a term used by
religionists and movementists to mean what they believe
is right.

The Natural Law Party perceives natural law as something
to do with the natural balance of life.
The Catholic church appeals to natural law to justify
their views on morality.

I am an atheist and see natural law as a something
pertaining to religion or at least strange beliefs.
Thus, I would not want to see natural law enshrined
in law.

Human tradition contains Christianity and the Bible
says things about not suffering a witch to live.
People who call themselves witches still exist
today but I do not think that this not-suffering tradition
is one that should find its way into law.

Regards
Tim

The Phantom Menace
Qui-Gon Jinn: He can see things before they happen. That's
why he appears to have such quick reflexes. It's a Jedi
trait

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:09:17 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Well, unfortunately for you, natural law is a term used by
> religionists and movementists to mean what they believe
> is right.

I consider you either naive or rather shallow based upon your
response.

> The Natural Law Party perceives natural law as something
> to do with the natural balance of life.

How would you know? You masquerade as being English. What do you know
of the "National Law Party"? That is an American institution for
crying out loud! Have you ever heard of David Hume? One of the most
revered of english philosophers? If you can't answer this one, I know
you are a fake and a fraud! And, I'll rest my case. If you are
english, then you will certainly know who David Hume was, and is, in
terms of natural law. He never claimed at any time to be Christian, or
religious in any way! I think you've just stepped on your own dick,
or else you may be an American trying to disguise himself as an
english foreigner. One thing I do know now, you have no knowledge of
english philosophy. Or, probably any other philosophy either. Or, you
are a complete fool, and wants to just pretend to be somebody with an
embodiment of knowledge with no semblance of knowledge of basic
philosophy, even your own, if you even have one.

> The Catholic church appeals to natural law to justify
> their views on morality.

So, if you are really english, why should you care what the catholic
church poses? I still believe now that you are a fraud, and you are
increasingly proving it the more you speak.

> I am an atheist and see natural law as a something
> pertaining to religion or at least strange beliefs.

That's your choice. Not necessarily mine, nor is anyone else supposed
to even listen to you for that matter.

> Thus, I would not want to see natural law enshrined
> in law.

I can well understand why that might be necessary, for you at least.
Why do you feel it is necessary to impose "your" choices on others who
may disagree with you?

> Human tradition contains Christianity and the Bible
> says things about not suffering a witch to live.
> People who call themselves witches still exist
> today but I do not think that this not-suffering tradition
> is one that should find its way into law.

Really! I'm impressed.

Now. Answer me if you will. What about David Hume? Hardly
representative of Christian dogma. How are you going to deal with
that one? Or, can you even start maybe more appropriate.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:30:59 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> How would you know? You masquerade as being English. What do you
> know of the "National Law Party"? That is an American institution
> for crying out loud! Have you ever heard of David Hume?

Yes, I have heard of Hume. He was a deist critical of Christianity.

I said Natural Law and this is what I meant. The Natural Law
Party is associated with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

I have not heard of the National Law Party.

> Now. Answer me if you will. What about David Hume? Hardly
> representative of Christian dogma. How are you going to deal with
> that one? Or, can you even start maybe more appropriate.

Hume was not a believer in Christianity - to his credit.

Nevertheless, he believed in a Creator which I see as
completely unnecessary.

If Hume believed in something called natural law (which is
not unnatural for him as a deist), then we should not assume
that he knew when "human life" started.

I see the call for protection of human life from foetus
onwards as religious, no more to be enshrined in US law
than belief that little grey aliens are secretly controlling
George W Bush.

Regards
Tim

Ben-Hur
Messala: You live on dead dreams. You live on the myths of the past.
The glory of Soloman is gone. Do you think it will return?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:36:49 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in part:

> > The Natural Law Party perceives natural law as something
> > to do with the natural balance of life.

> How would you know? You masquerade as being English. What do you know
> of the "National Law Party"? That is an American institution for
> crying out loud!

It's the Natural Law Party, and it's organized in several countries.

I won't quote the rest, but I feel compelled to note here that Frank has
lately turned into the kind of poster he used to warn us about -- flying
off at the handle, not even reading others' posts carefully, taking
things personally, reading the worst into others' content. You didn't
use to be like this, Frank, so what's happening with you?

Sourly By Inert I,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
wrote:

> Strongly disagree! It depends entirely upon how you
> define science. I
> believe logically we can determine what has been a
> long-standing
> tradition amongst almost all recorded human
> civilization that some
> things are morally wrong, and some things are
> morally right, and vice
> versa.

Has there been any consistency with that whatsoever?
In Afghanistan until recently it was wrong for a woman
to show her face, and right to stone her to death for
it. Human beings create rules to live together, but
that does not equal scientific evidence for "natural
rights."

That's part of linguistic and social science,
> but it is just as
> accurate as any other science. Do you remember Rene
> Descarte, the
> father of modern western philosophy? His famous
> finding was: "I
> think, therefore, I am." proved his own existence.
> For me at least,
> that is the very genius of science as applied to a
> rational approach
> to human thought and even natural law itself if you
> follow his
> argument out further.

That's philosophy, not science. Philosophy is just
pure reason and thought thrown around. Science is
based upon observable evidence and repeatable
phenomonon. Descarte makes logical statements, but he
needs to base them on provable facts for them to be
considered science.

If you want to understand why I disagree with your
view of "natural law", look at it this way. If I throw
a ball at a given angle with the same amount of force
several times, it will always go in the same path, and
I can show this mathematically. That's scientifically
proven and is covered by Newton's Laws. However, if I
say I have free speech, but the government comes in
and busts me for writing bad things about Bush, there
are a great number of results that can happen. I can
be jailed for treason, I can be shot without a trial,
or I can be busted out by the ACLU. There's no A+b=C
in respect to those rights, or as consequences for
violating those rights. My personal philosophy
includes the right to free speech, but I am not so
arrogant as to believe that makes it fact.

> Historical human cultural history is just as much a
> product of natural
> science as anything else is. As such, we can talk
> about concrete
> natural law in terms of what has universally been
> accepted as such to
> define humanity, rights, and what constitutes human
> morality and
> immorality.

How can you prove morals, rights, or ethics using the
scientific method? You may say history provides
evidence, but history is not a controlled event that
we can use as scientific evidence. You are describing
moral and political philosophy, one that I for the
most part share with you. However, you can't say that
science backs you on it; science is not capable of
proving our personal beliefs. Science is a hell of a
tool for explaining the universe around us, but is too
limited to cover all of our beliefs.

Ken Butler

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:33:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Has there been any consistency with that whatsoever?
> In Afghanistan until recently it was wrong for a woman
> to show her face, and right to stone her to death for
> it. Human beings create rules to live together, but
> that does not equal scientific evidence for "natural
> rights."

Agreed. The previous Afghan regime in power was itself committing
crimes against nature and natural law in such cases.

> That's philosophy, not science. Philosophy is just
> pure reason and thought thrown around. Science is
> based upon observable evidence and repeatable
> phenomonon. Descarte makes logical statements, but he
> needs to base them on provable facts for them to be
> considered science.

He did, for himself. "I think, therefore I am." proved that he exists.
He could prove and demonstrate that he exists within the thought
process alone.

> If you want to understand why I disagree with your
> view of "natural law", look at it this way. If I throw
> a ball at a given angle with the same amount of force
> several times, it will always go in the same path, and
> I can show this mathematically. That's scientifically
> proven and is covered by Newton's Laws. However, if I
> say I have free speech, but the government comes in
> and busts me for writing bad things about Bush, there
> are a great number of results that can happen. I can
> be jailed for treason, I can be shot without a trial,
> or I can be busted out by the ACLU.

But science itself has a much wider scale that limiting such to
physics or mathematics. Any scientific inquiry has a subject-object
relation. An object comes under investigation by a subject. The
object in many cases may only be a small part of a concrete entity or
whole, such as a human being. We have dermatologists for example that
confine their study to skin, although the rest of the body that is
housed by the skin still exists, it just isn't the object of the
science.

Maybe philosophy can play a role in how science plays itself out, and
often does. But objectively when talking about natural law, it is
largely confined to the history of human civilizations, and that
involves the thought processes which were involved in determining what
is right opposed to what is wrong. The Ten Commandments are a good
example, since the precepts are observable over all of recorded
history and across a wide enough scale of civilizations to claim that
such laws are fundamental to the human species.

Murder and theft for example are generally universal in application,
and although the specifics of various particular laws may differ
slightly, and the degrees of punishment as well, we can extrapolate
that such things as murder, theft, deceit and the like are immoral and
wrong based upon natural law, because it exists universally and can be
observed and measured universally.

As you pointed out above, even nations such as the former Afghan
regime, may also violate natural law, and in some cases they are
punished for doing so, often by their own people.

> How can you prove morals, rights, or ethics using the
> scientific method?

By observing them in the historical context in which they exist.

> You may say history provides
> evidence, but history is not a controlled event that
> we can use as scientific evidence.

Wrong. History is analysed as such all the time. Which is why there
are various models for approaching political science, economics and
sociology, all based on historical assumptions and relatively
standardized normative conditions. In fact, I can't imagine how
science could exist in any form whatsoever absent a realization from a
critical study of and approach to historical phenomena surrounding any
particular scientific inquiry. In astro physics for example, we
didn't simply wake up one morning and find ourselves where we are
right now in terms of such a body of knowledge. The developments that
occurred were in real time and space in human history.

> You are describing
> moral and political philosophy, one that I for the
> most part share with you. However, you can't say that
> science backs you on it; science is not capable of
> proving our personal beliefs. Science is a hell of a
> tool for explaining the universe around us, but is too
> limited to cover all of our beliefs.

Personal (or individual) beliefs, perhaps. As far a studying what
constitutes natural law, it is not so fuzzy, since we have huge
embodiments of written code from many civilization that have
previously existed. Science in this can can be a useful tool in
revealing what has been the most essential foundations in laws
governing man. Because they universally exist, and I would suspect
long before even recorded history was made, they can be considered
normative. Although it isn't necessary provable (but it might be
clearer through anthropological studies of bones and bone fragments)
likely prehistoric tribal laws also likely had unwritten codes against
murder, rape and theft. And, if this is the case, then it would
further confirm that humans have always been governed under natural
law common to the species.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
wrote:

> Agreed. The previous Afghan regime in power was
> itself committing
> crimes against nature and natural law in such cases.

You could say Iraq is doing the same thing, and yet
you are opposed to war with them.

> He did, for himself. "I think, therefore I am."
> proved that he exists.
> He could prove and demonstrate that he exists within
> the thought
> process alone.

I've talked to people who don't think we exist, or who
think we do in some kind of subjective reality. And
they've read Descarte and Aristotle and all the old
philosophers. Philosophy doesn't prove anything; it's
an intellectual exercise.

> Maybe philosophy can play a role in how science
> plays itself out, and
> often does. But objectively when talking about
> natural law, it is
> largely confined to the history of human
> civilizations, and that
> involves the thought processes which were involved
> in determining what
> is right opposed to what is wrong.

But you can't base science purely on history. If that
were the case, the Theory of Evolution would be fact.
For it to be true scientific data, you have to observe
it and be able to repeat the results. I'm not limiting
this to physics like you seem to think; the method
works for psychology and sociology and a number of
other less tangible things. But you can't look at
history and flat out say "That proves my point, that's
scientific fact."

The Ten
> Commandments are a good
> example, since the precepts are observable over all
> of recorded
> history and across a wide enough scale of
> civilizations to claim that
> such laws are fundamental to the human species.

The whole species keeps holy the Sabbath and worships
Yahweh? That's news to me.

> > How can you prove morals, rights, or ethics using
> the
> > scientific method?
>
> By observing them in the historical context in which
> they exist.

Do you know what the scientific method is, Frank? It's
a pretty strict, objective way to get information.
Rights are pretty vague and untestable.

> Wrong. History is analysed as such all the time.
> Which is why there
> are various models for approaching political
> science, economics and
> sociology, all based on historical assumptions and
> relatively
> standardized normative conditions.

Assumptions and conditions, not proven facts.

In astro physics for
> example, we
> didn't simply wake up one morning and find ourselves
> where we are
> right now in terms of such a body of knowledge. The
> developments that
> occurred were in real time and space in human
> history.

Obviously science developed to where it is over the
last few centuries, with roots in ancient times.
However, the knowledge was gained at its time through
experimentation and observation, not through
historical study. You're really stretching here.

> Personal (or individual) beliefs, perhaps. As far a
> studying what
> constitutes natural law, it is not so fuzzy, since
> we have huge
> embodiments of written code from many civilization
> that have
> previously existed. Science in this can can be a
> useful tool in
> revealing what has been the most essential
> foundations in laws
> governing man.
>
Okay, first off, you keep bringing up these rules as
being universal, except where they aren't like in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Then you say where they aren't, the
nation is often overthrown. Most governments are
eventually overthrown anyway; the US is a rare
exception that it still has the same type of
government that it was founded with. Maybe that won't
last either; human institutions often don't, it seems.

Second, since you're so convinced that morals=
scientific fact, can you name some scientists who
share your opinion? Has it been documented by anyone
from the twentieth century, or are all your ideas from
hundreds of years ago? I'm not trying to be a jerk
here, but if it was scientific fact, wouldn't it be a
known fact and not something I'm just hearing on this
list?

Ken

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:05:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Agreed. The previous Afghan regime in power was
> > itself committing
> > crimes against nature and natural law in such cases.

In which you replied:
> You could say Iraq is doing the same thing, and yet
> you are opposed to war with them.

I would oppose going to war against Afghanistan as well. The
difference here is that the US was attacked, presumably by a
conspiracy in which the Taliban was most likely harbouring the
terrorists who were responsible for the attack upon America. I am not
about to suggest or support that the US government engage in warfare
against any nation unless US citizens or property are threatened or
attacked. I am opposed to attacking Iraq for exactly the same reason.

> I've talked to people who don't think we exist, or who
> think we do in some kind of subjective reality. And
> they've read Descarte and Aristotle and all the old
> philosophers. Philosophy doesn't prove anything; it's
> an intellectual exercise.

Philosophy, as you say, may never "prove" very much in the generic
sense (at least conclusively), but philosophies (plural) guide just
about everything people do, who they are, and what they believe. You
have a philosophy which guides your motives, idealism of sorts, and
what you believe ought to be. That's what philosophy is. Not what
reality may or may not be, but what "ought" to be. Libertarianism is
BOTH a philosophy and also at the same time it can exhibit itself as a
political movement which supports that philosophy for example.

I wrote, and I know I need to explain this further:
> > Maybe philosophy can play a role in how science
> > plays itself out, and
> > often does. But objectively when talking about
> > natural law, it is
> > largely confined to the history of human
> > civilizations, and that
> > involves the thought processes which were involved
> > in determining what
> > is right opposed to what is wrong.

> But you can't base science purely on history. If that
> were the case, the Theory of Evolution would be fact.

In a way, I certainly can. Science would never evolve at all to its
present state unless it had an historical progression. You move
forward in science only because you have the historical perspective of
what has been observed prior to that, and then move forward from
there. You don't build a space shuttle using technology based upon
scientific information of say the year 1510. However, some of that
early progression in science was built upon cumulatively until we come
to a point where a space shuttle is probable. All I am saying,
nothing really, including science exists in a vacuum excluding
historical progression.

Now, to try and clear up what I wrote just above, because I believe it
is necessary here. Natural law if taken as a product of pre-existing
necessity, isn't couched in philosophical terms, at least as far as
defining such law is concerned. It's a different animal entirely,
although as I said, philosophy certainly plays a role in how that law
might be applied in various civilizations. Remember, I used very
general definitions, such as the Ten Commandments, that show that
murder, theft, deceit and so forth were intrinsically wrong. You got
down to the specifics of application of the Ten Commandments, and that
wasn't at all what I had in mind. There are very clear and genuine
laws inherent within the human species that define such things as
murder, rape, theft, and deceit, as "wrong".

> For it to be true scientific data, you have to observe
> it and be able to repeat the results.

Or, simply show that history has always accepted that something is bad
versus good. Even in what we might call evil civilizations, such as
the fascist regimes that once plagued western Europe, I am sure that
in civil law at least, murder, rape, and theft were contrary to public
law. I doubt that even the Third Reich for example, was able to erase
that distinction from criminal law as it existed at that time.

What is only necessary is to show that natural law exists as a
consequence of necessity as a human civilization. If as such,
repeated itself again and again, over all of recorded history, then we
can call such law "natural" -- because it is necessary to the human
species. As I stated in an earlier post, it may someday be possible
for anthropologists to determine that such natural law even existed
BEFORE recorded history! A lot of that may be extrapolation from bone
fragments of those executed for committing various crimes, or some
kind of evidence suggesting the existence of a prehistoric tribal
council or court of law in a remedial sense. And, anthropological
science is getting about that close today in determining such
information based upon archaeological evidence.

> I'm not limiting
> this to physics like you seem to think; the method
> works for psychology and sociology and a number of
> other less tangible things. But you can't look at
> history and flat out say "That proves my point, that's
> scientific fact."

In some cases you have to. If it is clear, convincing, and there seems
to be no other rational for not accepting such, then what other
alternatives might you find to refute such evidence? Why CAN'T
historical science say such things? You seem to believe that science
has no role at all in historical research. This is preposterous!

Okay now... I wrote on the Ten Commandments:
> > The Ten
> > Commandments are a good
> > example, since the precepts are observable over all
> > of recorded
> > history and across a wide enough scale of
> > civilizations to claim that
> > such laws are fundamental to the human species.

And you replied:
> The whole species keeps holy the Sabbath and worships
> Yahweh? That's news to me.

That's not at all what I was implying, and I hope I made this rather
clear above. Anymore that I would accept 100 percent of the Code of
Hamirabi or ancient Persia or the Babylonian Empire as a complete
embodiment of natural law. Every civilization, including our own, has
violated natural law as it is currently defined. When Jefferson wrote
that such laws are self-evident, he didn't bother, because he didn't
have to, explain it. It was simply acknowledged that certain laws are
self-evident, and over time have become acknowledged as necessary for
human civilization to exist.

> Do you know what the scientific method is, Frank? It's
> a pretty strict, objective way to get information.
> Rights are pretty vague and untestable.

To get into this would take a lot longer to explain that what might be
suitable for a simple post. I wonder then, why such a question?
Science is centred around theoretical thought, a thought process that
differs greatly from our everyday naive experience, the way you and I,
and everyone else, experiences life on a non-critical day-to-day
basis. Is this really a suitable discussion for Liberty Northwest?
Whole volumes of books are written on this subject. Most western
philosophers of recent centuries have dealt with this, but I fail to
see how this will add or detract from the science of historical
observation in recognizing that natural law exists as a basis for the
human species. Probably no one else here, except perhaps you, me, and
a couple of others really care.

So, rather than get into the definition of what constitutes science
itself, maybe we should rather confine this to the fact that science
is a very significant ingredient in doing historical research, and
drawing conclusions from such research.

I previously wrote:
> In astro physics for
> > example, we
> > didn't simply wake up one morning and find ourselves
> > where we are
> > right now in terms of such a body of knowledge. The
> > developments that
> > occurred were in real time and space in human
> > history.

And, you replied:
> Obviously science developed to where it is over the
> last few centuries, with roots in ancient times.
> However, the knowledge was gained at its time through
> experimentation and observation, not through
> historical study. You're really stretching here.

Again, you fail to grasp what I had in mind. There WOULD BE no modern
science, no discoveries at all, into any of this if there was no
historical precedents or historical progression! Again, you don't
just wake up some morning and decide to build a space shuttle, without
any consistent historical accumulation of science over a very long
period of time. Even in the case of the space shuttle, some of the
science is of course very recent. But not all of it. Even getting to
that level required a lot of prior discoveries in physics, physical
laws, and biology on how the human body might perform in conditions
that are unique in the absence of gravity!

Why do you believe that in any introductory college classroom, Physics
101, Biology 101, Anthropology 101, etc., etc., all go back and first
take a look at the historical progression of how such science
developed to where it is now? Newton's laws of physics are still a
perquisite today to understanding modern physics! You can't get to
where you want to go in science without historical study, reflection
and understanding as a fundamental perquisite! If that weren't the
case, it would hold that the "cave man" could have created a space
shuttle!

> Okay, first off, you keep bringing up these rules as
> being universal, except where they aren't like in Iraq
> and Afghanistan.

Not at all. Every civilization, including our own violates the laws of
nature and natural law. At the same time, most likely, it supports
natural law. Is there a contradiction? Of course there is. That
doesn't exclude natural law as not being self-evident, it simply means
that even nations don't always adhere to such laws, and there are
always consequences for violating such laws.

> Then you say where they aren't, the
> nation is often overthrown. Most governments are
> eventually overthrown anyway; the US is a rare
> exception that it still has the same type of
> government that it was founded with. Maybe that won't
> last either; human institutions often don't, it seems.

I don't personally have a problem with this, since it pretty much
holds to what I have already said. The government however, as it
exists today, is light years away from what it was constructed to be,
e.g.: a very limited government with very restrictive powers. That's
hardly the case today. If anything, the present US government is an
illegitimate one, based upon the abuse of constitutional power. I
don't support giving one-half of my productive life to support this
central government. I hope it is dismantled peacefully, but if not,
then I wouldn't object very much either. The idea is to make it just
go away and get out of my life. Most people don't feel the way I do,
or I would have won the election for the First District State Senate
race in 2000.

> Second, since you're so convinced that morals=
> scientific fact, can you name some scientists who
> share your opinion?

Well, first I would call this a strawman argument, because I didn't
say any such thing. I would say rather than human rights in the sense
of the Ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were largely based upon
inalienable rights as evidenced in human history for a very long time.
As such they were played out, as it were, in the US given a
philosophical direction at the time. In the same frame of mind, the
US Constitution, as originally intended, isn't playing out very well
these days. So, I really wonder just how much credence we can place on
resorting to so-called "Constitutional challenges" any more. The
judges on the High Court certainly don't seem to care very much about
what the intent may have been. Which is why they are prostitutes for
the most part, excepting maybe Clarence Thomas, about the only one
left who gives a shit about the original intent of the authors of the
document.

> Has it been documented by anyone
> from the twentieth century, or are all your ideas from
> hundreds of years ago? I'm not trying to be a jerk
> here, but if it was scientific fact, wouldn't it be a
> known fact and not something I'm just hearing on this
> list?

I don't like the tone of this one. I have never suggested that we
should base anything upon an ancient historical precedent, have I? You
seem to be saying that I am the "arch conservative" of all time here!
That is NOT at all what I have been suggesting.

Why would you say such a thing? Of course I draw upon history, as
anyone really concerned with any scientific discipline might do. So,
what's this? I've already told you that any student in science must
first learn of the history that has led up to the present time before
anything really makes any sense at all. It's the same thing in
determining the nature of law, or (I know you hate this) "Natural
Law". I like Jefferson's language. But he didn't invent it either.
It's self-evident because it was acknowledged as such by other before
him, e.g.: John Locke for starters, and even going back very much
further to Cicero, and likely even long before that. That is sir, the
science of history.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:36:29 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> It was simply acknowledged that certain laws are
> self-evident, and over time have become acknowledged as necessary for
> human civilization to exist.

Acknowledged by whom? This is the problem. People do not all
acknowledge that all abortions are bad in modern times.

I do not acknowledge that foetuses
need protection for human civilization to exist any more
than I acknowledge the claims of Hindus that certain
of these rituals are required or the world will be
destroyed.

Human civilization can get on quite well without such
protection in my view.

Regards
Tim

Ghostbusters
Yeager: Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods
are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:38:44 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> It's the Natural Law Party, and it's organized in several countries.
> I won't quote the rest, but I feel compelled to note here that Frank has
> lately turned into the kind of poster he used to warn us about -- flying
> off at the handle, not even reading others' posts carefully, taking
> things personally, reading the worst into others' content. You didn't
> use to be like this, Frank, so what's happening with you?

Maybe, I'm getting tired of the struggle Robert, and I don't like
dealing in senseless mousemilking exercises, or dealing with
fragmented excerpts to things I have written, or the stupid use of
debate tactics that have often been employed here since at least 9/11
allegedly to prove points that "professed" libertarians make who are
arguing against the most fundamental of libertarian principles. It
could be any number of such things. You take your pick.

It could be an entire cluster of a lot of things why I may post
differently these days. But I don't subscribe at all to your criticism
that I've failed very much in reading the posts at hand. Actually, I
believe some have taken one hell of a lot of what I have written, and
reduced it mainly to simplistic one-liners. You, yourself, have asked
certain clarifications, but only given me meagre fragments to work
with. I don't have the time to go back and research such things that I
have written previously. Either you supply the supporting dialogue
leading up to your questions, or don't bother me. It's an insult to
be confronted with a fragment of a partial sentence without knowing in
which context it was intended. Have I EVER done that with YOU? Think
about it. I don't believe I have insulted you in such a way, ever.

This conference has always been wide open, and hopefully honest. I
post here myself as a simple participant along with everyone else. A
few months ago, one individual actually had the audacity to say,
"Frank was going to kick me out of here!" (Ostensibly because he
disagreed with me. Really! Have I ever done such a thing over more
than a decade when someone doesn't agree with me?

Robert, I don't think I have changed so much, as maybe the
conversations around here are changing a lot. Well, admittedly, a lot
of things are changing very rapidly right now. But some of the
language has also markedly changed, and the way we address certain
issues. That isn't so bad, it has more to do with the techniques
employed in such criticism.

I will NEVER support the initiation of force, or aggression in US
foreign policy. That's the key issue here right now, or at least it
seems to be. I didn't do that 10 years ago, and I won't do that
today. Don't get me wrong, I believe in potential force. That is,
that the US government should maintain the strongest military power on
the face of the earth for purely defensive purposes. But I do NOT
believe such force should be used in terms of aggression. That's
pretty clear, at least as I see it. No. To answer one of your much
earlier posts, I am NOT a pacifist.

If you think for a moment "I" have changed, maybe you might want to
explore a bit you YOU might have changed, or the world around you
might have changed in the last decade, or narrow that down to the last
12 months or so. Maybe this is where the rubber meets the road insofar
as libertarian principles might be involved.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:52:09 +0100
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> It could be an entire cluster of a lot of things why I may post
> differently these days. But I don't subscribe at all to your
> criticism
> that I've failed very much in reading the posts at hand. Actually,
> I believe some have taken one hell of a lot of what I have written,
> and reduced it mainly to simplistic one-liners. You, yourself, have
> asked
> certain clarifications, but only given me meagre fragments to work
> with. I don't have the time to go back and research such things that
> I have written previously.

Once again we have a charge from Frank against enemies unknown.
And once again, not one shred of evidence to back it up.

Do you not know how to back up your accusations with evidence?

Simply lashing out at others that you have been treated
unfairly is unwarranted aggression on your part, Frank.

People involved in such agression should leave the list
which is intended for serious discussion.

Regards
Tim

Ghostbusters
Yeager: Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods
are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:03:42 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

In the middle of an otherwise fine post, "Frank Reichert"
<libnw@usa.net> wrote:

> Every civilization, including our own violates the laws of
> nature and natural law.

By most conceptions of "laws of nature", a single violation of one
proves that it isn't a law of nature after all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:29:41 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in part:

> But I don't subscribe at all to your criticism
> that I've failed very much in reading the posts at hand. Actually, I
> believe some have taken one hell of a lot of what I have written, and
> reduced it mainly to simplistic one-liners. You, yourself, have asked
> certain clarifications, but only given me meagre fragments to work
> with. I don't have the time to go back and research such things that I
> have written previously. Either you supply the supporting dialogue
> leading up to your questions, or don't bother me.

I'm following standards which in other forums is considered the usual
Netiquette.

> It's an insult to
> be confronted with a fragment of a partial sentence without knowing in
> which context it was intended.

I wouldn't say an insult, but it is vexing, yes. It's just that
different people have different standards as to how much of a quote they
need or desire in order to understand.

> Have I EVER done that with YOU? Think
> about it. I don't believe I have insulted you in such a way, ever.

No, you've never done that. But to my needs, I find your quotes overly
long, which results in longer-than-necessary posts.

It's an established bit of Netiquette that one try to quote as much as,
and only as much as, necessary. It's possible to err on either side by
quoting too much or too little. Quote too much, and it's hard to figure
out the point of the reply, besides requiring the reader to have to
waste time. But I understand that our needs differ in this regard. I'm
afraid that's going to continue to be a problem, as the quoting and
reply style that may be just right for one person is incomprehensibly
short for another, and vexingly (and possibly incomprehensibly) long for
another.

> If you think for a moment "I" have changed, maybe you might want to
> explore a bit you YOU might have changed, or the world around you
> might have changed in the last decade, or narrow that down to the last
> 12 months or so. Maybe this is where the rubber meets the road insofar
> as libertarian principles might be involved.

I understand how that can lead to differences in content, but not of
style.

However, come to think of it, there is something that's changed within
(?) the past year -- the disappearance of Radical Roger. I certainly
didn't wish his death, but my reaction to his posts was usually
negative, often very much so. When he was around, maybe I thought of
some posts, "At least that's not as bad as Radical Roger's." And let's
not bring up Jaqueline Q. Scott's content! So maybe standards have gone
up in my eyes.

Thinking of Radical Roger makes me wonder now whether the recent
truncated USAn TV series-plus-contest "Push, Nevada" was inspired by him
& his death. (The show was certainly influenced, to say the least, by
"Illuminatus!")

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Ken,

> > Agreed. The previous Afghan regime in power was
> > itself committing
> > crimes against nature and natural law in such
> cases.
>
> You could say Iraq is doing the same thing, and yet
> you are opposed to war with them.

All nations are to some degree or another committing
crimes against varying perspectives of "nature and
natural law." Are you suggesting that the US should
go to war with any country we think is committing
crimes against "nature and natural law"?

> > He did, for himself. "I think, therefore I am."
> > proved that he exists.
> > He could prove and demonstrate that he exists
> within
> > the thought
> > process alone.
>
> I've talked to people who don't think we exist, or
> who
> think we do in some kind of subjective reality. And
> they've read Descarte and Aristotle and all the old
> philosophers. Philosophy doesn't prove anything;
> it's
> an intellectual exercise.

There are people who think the universe was created
six thousand years ago in spite of the vast scientific
evidence that the universe is billions of years old.
Their disbelief doesn't mean that science "doesn't
prove anything" or that it's just "an intellectual
exercise." People choose to ignore facts and believe
what they wish to believe all the time.

> > Maybe philosophy can play a role in how science
> > plays itself out, and
> > often does. But objectively when talking about
> > natural law, it is
> > largely confined to the history of human
> > civilizations, and that
> > involves the thought processes which were involved
> > in determining what
> > is right opposed to what is wrong.
>
> But you can't base science purely on history. If
> that
> were the case, the Theory of Evolution would be
> fact.
> For it to be true scientific data, you have to
> observe
> it and be able to repeat the results. I'm not
> limiting
> this to physics like you seem to think; the method
> works for psychology and sociology and a number of
> other less tangible things. But you can't look at
> history and flat out say "That proves my point,
> that's
> scientific fact."

Actually, the Theory of Evolution is as close to a
fact as any scientific theory can be. There are vast
amounts of evidence in many different fields that
support the basic concepts of evolution. Scientists
don't have to observe "evolution" occurring right now
to know that it did in fact occur.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com, tim.bedding@polyhedra.com

Tim,

> > It could be an entire cluster of a lot of things
> why I may post
> > differently these days. But I don't subscribe at
> all to your
> > criticism
> > that I've failed very much in reading the posts at
> hand. Actually,
> > I believe some have taken one hell of a lot of
> what I have written,
> > and reduced it mainly to simplistic one-liners.
> You, yourself, have
> > asked
> > certain clarifications, but only given me meagre
> fragments to work
> > with. I don't have the time to go back and
> research such things that
> > I have written previously.
>
> Once again we have a charge from Frank against
> enemies unknown.
> And once again, not one shred of evidence to back it
> up.
>
> Do you not know how to back up your accusations with
> evidence?

I don't imagine Frank felt the need to back up his
accusation with "examples" since 1) he was simply
offering an explanation about why his posting methods
may have changed (to answer a question Robert asked)
and his perception of other people's responses to his
posts could realistically impact his posting methods
and 2) I doubt he felt the need to find particular
examples, since it ought to be obvious to everyone
here that one of Robert's favorite methods of posting
is to ask a question - that is often unclear - of some
snippet of someone's previous post.

If you are asserting that Robert does in fact always
include enough of a previous post and enough
commentary of his own to make his questions adequately
clear, then perhaps Frank might wish to go through the
archives and find an example of the sort of post he's
referring to. But I think he probably assumed -
justifiably in my opinion - that Robert (who he was
specifically talking to) and other interested parties
reading the exchange, would know what he was referring
to without him having to provide specific examples.

> Simply lashing out at others that you have been
> treated
> unfairly is unwarranted aggression on your part,
> Frank.
>
> People involved in such agression should leave the
> list
> which is intended for serious discussion.

It's not like Frank just randomly accused Robert of
something. Robert asked him a question; Frank
answered it.

And if failing to back up an assertion with specific
examples meant a poster would be kicked off of the
list for "unwarranted aggression" this list would be
depleted of members REALLY soon. You, for instance,
would have been gone a few days ago when you claimed
that all the articles on the L4L website commit the
logical error of "begging the question" but provided
no specific examples of such errors and never even
stated what question you thought was being begged.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:46:50 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote in part:

> it ought to be obvious to everyone
> here that one of Robert's favorite methods of posting
> is to ask a question - that is often unclear - of some
> snippet of someone's previous post.

BTW, I've been participating in online forums since 1993, and nowhere
else -- and not even here until recently -- have participants said my
style had that deficiency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> All nations are to some degree or another committing
> crimes against varying perspectives of "nature and
> natural law." Are you suggesting that the US should
> go to war with any country we think is committing
> crimes against "nature and natural law"?

Frank implied that what happened to Afghanistan was
the result of their breaking "natural law". The US
carried it out, so following that logic the US should
be doing just what you say. I don't claim that my
beliefs are in any way some fundamental law of nature,
so I wouldn't pursue that as a goal.
>

> Their disbelief doesn't mean that science "doesn't
> prove anything" or that it's just "an intellectual
> exercise." People choose to ignore facts and
> believe
> what they wish to believe all the time.

Yes, but "I think, therefore I am" doesn't prove
anything, especially in the way Frank seems to want it
to. I asked for scientific proof, and got a
philosophical response.

> Actually, the Theory of Evolution is as close to a
> fact as any scientific theory can be. There are
> vast
> amounts of evidence in many different fields that
> support the basic concepts of evolution. Scientists
> don't have to observe "evolution" occurring right
> now
> to know that it did in fact occur.

I find it hard to imagine any other way. However, by
the strict rules of scientific research, they can't
classify evolution as a law despite the great amounts
of evidence. I mentioned that while considering
Frank's statements; how much harder would it then be
to conclude that our rights are in fact laws based in
science? Calling them "Natural Law" implies that they
are a scientific fact, when I don't think any
objective criteria could go nearly that far. I like
having rights; I think that all governments should
have them protected, and that we probably function
best as human beings with them. However, calling them
a law of nature is a huge leap of logic, and I am
attempting to explain why that is the case.

Ken

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: 26 Oct 2002 16:57:52 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 06:38, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > It's the Natural Law Party, and it's organized in several countries.
> > I won't quote the rest, but I feel compelled to note here that Frank has
> > lately turned into the kind of poster he used to warn us about -- flying
> > off at the handle, not even reading others' posts carefully, taking
> > things personally, reading the worst into others' content. You didn't
> > use to be like this, Frank, so what's happening with you?
>
> Maybe, I'm getting tired of the struggle Robert, and I don't like
> dealing in senseless mousemilking exercises, or dealing with

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if one person says "Natural Law
party", and another says "National Law Party" (perhaps because they did
not read the word "Natural"?), it is not mouse milking to point out that
the original person said "Natural Law Party"; since they are in fact and
deed, two different groups of people. I'm sure those of the National Law
party would not appreciate being confused with the Natural Law Party.

Come on Frank, if it was a simple mistake of you thinking he said
National, all it would take is a "oops, sorry, I thought you said
National", rather than "natural". I doubt that anyone here would have
had any problem with that. But to go on like you did, calling Tim a
"fraud" because YOU misread what he wrote (confusing National with
Natural -- or assuming he meant something completely different) is doing
the things you complain about.

Regarding whether or not you failed to read the post in question, either
you did fail to read it, and assumed that when someone said "Natural Law
Party" they meant "National Law Party", or you knew exactly what Tim
said and didn't care, instead going off on something else, and leveling
insults at him in the process.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Deadly Trap
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:22:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Michelle Eilers...

> Yes, but "I think, therefore I am" doesn't prove
> anything, especially in the way Frank seems to want it
> to. I asked for scientific proof, and got a
> philosophical response.

I'm not even about to take the time to respond to such crap as this.
Some people believe they know it all, even if perhaps they've never
taken a philosophy course in their lifetime. It's a waste of my time
and it appears doubtful it would resonate with you anyway. Sorry, I'm
not biting this time.

Bye,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:58:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> Also from Reason Alert: Reason Associate Editor Sara Rimensnyder
> explains that the terrorist attack that killed nearly 200 people in Bali
> drives home this point: The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
> growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
> for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
> choose your pleasure.
> http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml

That's a blatant scapegoat if I ever saw one! Why should anyone care
whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
under different conditions? Saudis, for example, who choose to be
governed under stick islamic law, shouldn't have any real heartburn
about say Spain, governed in a more pluralistic secular fashion.

I think it has much more to do with aggression, military, political
and economic foreign policy aggression, that is, than simply objecting
to what other countries choose as their ideological or social
principles.

At least I haven't yet seen any proof that "Reason Alert" should be
given very much credibility at all, since everyone essentially in the
islamic world has been telling us for decades, "it's the foreign
policy stupid!".

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:05:32 -0400
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> Why should anyone care
> whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
> have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
> under different conditions?

Because "THEY" are not unanimous, and include some who have not so
chosen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:03:51 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings, Frank.
At 21:58 10/22/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings Robert!
>
>Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...
>
> > Also from Reason Alert: Reason Associate Editor Sara Rimensnyder
> > explains that the terrorist attack that killed nearly 200 people in Bali
> > drives home this point: The extremist jihad, fought by Al Qaeda and a
> > growing roster of others, is a war against the West and all it stands
> > for--most particularly the secular state, pluralism, and the right to
> > choose your pleasure.
> > http://reason.com/links/links101602.shtml
>
>That's a blatant scapegoat if I ever saw one! Why should anyone care
>whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
>have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
>under different conditions?

Good question. Why would the Puritans care how anyone else in the
community lived--especially since they had been persecuted in their home
countries? Why should the Spanish priests go to the "New World" and
attempt to "civilize" the native peoples by making them change their way of
life? Why would Muslims, whose very religion was begun and grown through
the aggressive use of force, be presumed to be any less judgmental and
authoritarian than those judgmental and authoritarian people from Christian
history? With all the examples from history (and I'm sure you could
provide plenty more than I, after all, you are the historian) what earthly
reason do you have for thinking that radical Islamics do *NOT* hold the
views that Sara Rimensnyder says they do?

> Saudis, for example, who choose to be
>governed under stick islamic law,

And your evidence of that "choice" is....?

> shouldn't have any real heartburn
>about say Spain, governed in a more pluralistic secular fashion.

Frank. What you have displayed here is a classic example of
projection. You have projected your attitudes and beliefs on people who
are very different than you.

You have criticized me for "assuming that people want the same things that
I want" when they live in different cultures. In fact, we went 'round and
'round on that stuff for dozens of posts, if I recall. I was arguing that
capitalist societies governed by the rule of law through a republican form
of government was the best method of securing the happiness and prosperity
of the people. I provided multiple examples of how this worked when it was
tried (and how not trying it did not work.) At that time, you argued
against me, saying that people should find their own way (although you
refused to provide any specifics about how they might do this.) And yet,
here you are, arguing that some people (Muslims), who are demonstrably
different in attitude from you, must somehow share an attitude that you
hold.

As a historian, you should be very well aware that your attitude (that
someone in one country should not care how those in another country behave)
is a rather recent innovation, even in the western world. And yet, you
*assume* that this innovative thinking is shared by people who give homage
to a religion that has always grown through conquest and force--in other
words through holding the exact *OPPOSITE* attitutude!

You're a nice guy, Frank. The terrorists, practically by definition, are
not. That's a pretty good clue that they don't think like you do.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:07:35 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert....

I previously wrote:
> > Why should anyone care
> > whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
> > have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
> > under different conditions?

You replied:
> Because "THEY" are not unanimous, and include some who have not so
> chosen.

So, one lonely asshole who decides that the current government sucks,
and has no power or force to change the status quo? Who cares?

The commentary I gave last time had to do with WHY should individuals
in chiefly Islamic dominated states, care what happens in other
countries? That still holds. Hardly a reason to justify violence or
aggression. After all, they choose who governs them, either by
consensus, or for doing nothing at all and thereby promoting their own
status quo. If capitalism is superior in terms of economic
superiority, that should after all mean nothing to them, who have
chosen to accept future after-life rewards, versus instant
gratification.

I guess I don't see what connection, if any, you are trying to make.
The best you seem to be able to do is offer the one, disgruntled,
individual who has an axe to grind by the government that rules over
him/her. Well, that's really rather easy to find on such a scale.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:09:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Good question. Why would the Puritans care how anyone else in the
> community lived--especially since they had been persecuted in their home
> countries?

Good post. I'll try and answer this one tomorrow, hopefully when I
have more time to devote to it.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:16:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

As it was very late last night, I told you I would get back with you
today. Here goes.

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote to Robert Goodman:
> >That's a blatant scapegoat if I ever saw one! Why should anyone care
> >whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
> >have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
> >under different conditions?

You replied:
> Good question. Why would the Puritans care how anyone else in the
> community lived--especially since they had been persecuted in their home
> countries? Why should the Spanish priests go to the "New World" and
> attempt to "civilize" the native peoples by making them change their way
of
> life? Why would Muslims, whose very religion was begun and grown through
> the aggressive use of force, be presumed to be any less judgmental and
> authoritarian than those judgmental and authoritarian people from
Christian
> history? With all the examples from history (and I'm sure you could
> provide plenty more than I, after all, you are the historian) what earthly
> reason do you have for thinking that radical Islamics do *NOT* hold the
> views that Sara Rimensnyder says they do?

At issue isn't that such things have happened, some of which in the
early American colonies. The issue was, the article that suggested
that American values are the reason why such venomous hatred is
spreading against the US and western allies throughout the islamic
world. If that were the case, then why are the apologists, government
leaders, including allies, telling America that 'it's our foreign
policy, and one-side aid to Israel that has inflamed such passions --
hardly simply because they want to destroy western civilization
itself.

Recorded history suggests that a lot of 'use of force' existed
millenniums before the origin of islam, so how could that be so
unique,
at least historically? The US government itself is a product of a
violent revolution! The accumulation of western territories by the US
was often pretexted by violent means particularly Spain and Mexico.
We did peacefully acquire huge territories from France, Spain and
Russia, but some of it occurred by brute force initiated by the US
government.

It isn't so much a question of what motivates radical islamists as it
is what we have done to encourage the growth in such radicalism.
Radicalism, in this case has its breeding ground in the arrogant use
of US force in a one-sided foreign policy that has treated the islamic
world as second class humanity. But this isn't only recent US foreign
policy, but has probably been building up for the last few hundred
years as France forcefully occupied the majority of north Africa and
large chunks of equatorial Africa, Britain subjugating vast tracks of
land in south Asia, the Netherlands occupying what is now Indonesia,
and the list goes on and on.

So, from looking at this in an historical context, it's difficult for
me to believe that western civilization has had a very good track
record in seeking equality and peace anywhere in the islamic world. I
would also suspect the educated muslims know their own history quite
well.

> > Saudis, for example, who choose to be
> >governed under stick islamic law,

> And your evidence of that "choice" is....?

True, there is no open democracy there, but the fact that at least so
far, the people have accepted the rule by the House of Saud. That
could change over time, but for the moment, the Saudi government
exists because the people either tolerate it, or allow it to exist.

> > shouldn't have any real heartburn
> >about say Spain, governed in a more pluralistic secular fashion.
>
> Frank. What you have displayed here is a classic example of
> projection. You have projected your attitudes and beliefs on people who
> are very different than you.

Call it what you will, Lowell. It still holds. I am not projecting my
beliefs on others; quite the contrary. Do you believe muslims care
whether or not Spain has a more open and pluralistic society that they
do? That was the issue I raised.

> You have criticized me for "assuming that people want the same things that
> I want" when they live in different cultures. In fact, we went 'round and
> 'round on that stuff for dozens of posts, if I recall.

Okay, true enough, but you may have mistakenly changed the meaning of
what I said to insinuate that I believe everyone essentially wants all
the same things. I did not say that above. In the same context to
what I said,
I can also say this: we have been sticking our face into muslim
countries at least since the Second World War, and Europeans have been
doing it hundreds of years longer than that. If anything at all, at
least in the last few hundred years, we have been trying to force
western influence throughout the islamic world at gun point.

> I was arguing that
> capitalist societies governed by the rule of law through a republican form
> of government was the best method of securing the happiness and prosperity
> of the people.

Okay, you and I believe that, grant it. However, I might submit that
most other people in other cultural settings, don't appreciate either
a republican form of government, nor any other table of law except say
islamic law, and others (in other belief or social systems). In other
words, western imposed law, or the formation of a republican form of
government (or another western variant) under the use of force might
be seen as insulting to those forced to live under such impositions.

> I provided multiple examples of how this worked when it was
> tried (and how not trying it did not work.) At that time, you argued
> against me, saying that people should find their own way (although you
> refused to provide any specifics about how they might do this.)

Yes, and I say that still holds. I haven't said anything here either
that would be contrary to that.

> And yet,
> here you are, arguing that some people (Muslims), who are demonstrably
> different in attitude from you, must somehow share an attitude that you
hold.

No, that's not at all what I said. Where did I say such a thing. You
are paraphrasing what I really did say, and making it out that I said
something else.

> As a historian, you should be very well aware that your attitude (that
> someone in one country should not care how those in another country
behave)
> is a rather recent innovation, even in the western world.

Now wait a minute Lowell. The US government mostly minded its own
damn business for over 100 years, unless we were provoked into
declaring war, or using our military as a means for self-defence. So
why do you feel what I had to say was recent, or even innovative?
It's neither recent nor innovative. Up until the end of the Second
World War, we had a policy of non-intervention, unless that is, we
were personally attacked. You know for damn sure that for the US
government at least, the only recent shift since the end of the Second
World War, is our policy of globalism, world policeman, and blatant
intervention into other people's own choices at gun point most of the
time, or economic aggression in other cases.

How can you really claim that even most of the western world really
cared very much about the internal affairs of other people, and the
way people choose to live, or a government that represents them.
Colonization was motivated largely by economic greed, rather than
humanitarian idealism! So why do you believe I am innovative, or only
bringing up new contexts for foreign policy? I know even today, large
portions of Asia, and likely just about everywhere else, one culture
really doesn't care very much how other cultures choose to exist.

> And yet, you
> *assume* that this innovative thinking is shared by people who give homage
> to a religion that has always grown through conquest and force--in other
> words through holding the exact *OPPOSITE* attitutude!

Damn Lowell -- IT'S NOT INNOVATIVE! You seem to be taking something
totally out of context and milking it for all its worth. Again, I
doubt very much that muslims regard what Spain chooses for its social
or political mores; but they would hate Spain a great deal if Spain
were using superior force to impose their will upon them at gun point,
or providing large amounts of military or economic aid to an enemy!
Hey, I don't especially love the islamic religion either, but "it
doesn't really matter" (to use a college roommates old phrase).

And, it doesn't matter. If I even hate the islamic religion, it really
doesn't matter. Whether I don't love it, but rather hate it, in
either case it really doesn't matter. It exists anyway, and my
personal feelings or opinions are of little consequence. Nations
exist that largely or totally embrace islamic law anyway, and it is
largely a choice that people make to live under such conditions, or
else eventually such would be overthrown. In reality, after over 1400
years, it has been growing and not being overthrown, even centuries of
western colonialism wasn't able to destroy it, or even alter it very
much.

> You're a nice guy, Frank. The terrorists, practically by definition, are
> not. That's a pretty good clue that they don't think like you do.

That's why I don't want to leave this hanging here. We all have a
couple of choices to make. There may be more choices, but there at
least two relevant ones. You seem to favour placing islam itself as an
enemy, a religion and movement that is out to destroy any and everyone
who will neither convert or capitulate. And, yes, I would agree that
early history of the islamic movement certainly (at least up until
about the time of the Protestant reformation in the early 1500s)
showed that islam itself as a political/religious movement was
becoming a critical problem. Only one thing really changed this
direction, "gunpowder". The golden age of islam from that point on
came to crashing end.

>From that point on however, it was a reverse movement through
aggressive western colonial and economic expansion that began several
hundred years of oppression against muslims almost everywhere (as I
noted above), from Indonesia (Dutch) to southern Asia (Britain) to
Morocco (France) and even Spain managed to get in on a little of it in
what was known as the Spanish Sahara and enclaves in northern Morocco
the later of which still exist to this day. We can honestly say, that
for hundreds of years, islamic culture was under the subjugation of
western power and aggression in various forms, and at gunpoint.

So, now we come into the 21st century. I'll grant you that the early
movement of islam certainly was aggressive against the west. But
hardly any more aggressive than were other previous empires that
preceded it.

Again, there may be other choices, but the two I have in mind are:

1). If islam itself is really a mortal enemy of the west, and the rest
of the world that is non-muslim, then that enemy must be defeated at
all costs by the west and others, or presumably the west and western
culture will be destroyed along with all other cultures over a period
of time. I know this presumes a lot, but that's basically a position
that you seem to be inclined to take.

2). Islam, like many civilizations that preceded it, achieved power
through the use of brute and intensive force. The west has also done
this for the last 500 years or so (remember, Columbus discovered the
new world in 1492 just prior to the Protestant reformation that began
in Europe beginning around 1521). Much of the west's expansion was
directed against various declining islamic civilizations that could no
longer defend itself in most cases.

Okay, there you have it. There are more opportunities if we view the
block of islamic nations and societies in the second context, or
really historical context, than there are if we choose to make foreign
policy choices based upon the first assumption. Basically Lowell, if
you really believe that the first case is absolutely true and
incontrovertible, then you have very few choices to make at all. You
are talking about a long protracted war involving genocide, either
"convert to our way of thinking" or die! That's essentially what you
said motivates islam today anyway isn't it.

But the second assumption is a much better one. We can recognize
aggression that has been taking place historically on both sides for
1,400 years! Is there room anywhere in this new millennium where we
have room to find a way where both sides can acknowledge such a
violent history that both cultures share, and find a way to pave a way
for equality in recognition, respect, and dialogue?

I believe there has to be a way! As Libertarians I believe we already
have a better way! We renounce the initiation of force to achieve
social, political or economic goals. That's the best start yet,
although I haven't seen much of that happening lately, have you? On
OUR side, we need to repudiate the initiation of force that the west
has historically employed over the last 500 years, sometimes directed
against islamic states along with a host of other cultures.

In saying this, I do not believe that we should NOT resist any hostile
aggression directed at US citizens either at home, or abroad. It is
NOT impossible either to form an equality judgement in dealing with
islamic states that do not present a hostile stance against the normal
society in which the US and other western governments have a right to
exist.

Perhaps the best weapon to use to defuse the tension is long term, but
doable. We have the technological advantage, and I don't mean military
technology. The internet. Communication. Food. Power (not aggression,
I mean power in the sense of harnessing power for productive uses). We
have the long term advantage of controlling entertainment for example,
what most of the world watches on the big screen, and even local
television. The ability of even hard-line islamic dictatorships are
finding it harder and harder all the time to block such invasion of
ideas coming from western sources. Morality! Here we have to do much
better than what we HAVE been doing! If our morality is "might"
equals "right", the Robert Goodman approach, then in my judgement
anyway, we are predestined to eventually lose, as all other such
civilizations have lost before.

Lowell, hopefully you'll read again the two choices I posited above.
Think about what you yourself said about the first choice, and what
options you really have to create a climate for change, for peace, for
equality. There aren't very many options at all if you really refuse
to move beyond this mentality. And, you, yourself, have identified
yourself as accepting this as a basis for not only US foreign policy,
but a sort of inevitable conflict between the islamic cultures and the
rest of the planet. That itself points to conflicts that likely won't
ever be resolved short of genocide, a genocide of one against another.
I think libertarians have a lot we can say by simply moving on to
other choices that have a much greater potential to effectively change
this seemingly ongoing historical battle that we generally accept
cannot be defused without tremendous military conflict and loss of
life. If we believe the 21st century has anything to offer at all, I
hope it is a move to get away from the quicksand of past disasters and
look for mutually beneficial alternatives.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: terror
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 04:57:47 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>I previously wrote to Robert Goodman:
> > >That's a blatant scapegoat if I ever saw one! Why should anyone care
> > >whether other countries are secular, pluralistic or why individual
> > >have the right to choose their pleasure, if THEY choose to be governed
> > >under different conditions?

My reply was basically an answer to your rhetorical question. You asked
why Muslims would care what is happening in other countries. I answered
with similar rhetorical questions about various times in Western history
when people *did* care what others did--both inside and outside their own
countries. You ignored and side-stepped my answers by replying off on
another tangent.

Frank, the fact is that Muslims *DO* care about what happens outside their
countries! They care very deeply--and for two very good reasons! First,
because the offensive (to them) culture "bleeds into" and corrupts their
own culture. Second (which I didn't talk about in my previous reply),
because the technology that comes out of Western culture is an implicit
challenge to their world view. These are the reasons that Soviet Communism
was the sworn enemy of the West. The leaders knew that they had to defeat
the West or they would suffer the fate that the Soviet Union eventually did
suffer--especially after it became obvious that Western technology and
standard of living was outpacing theirs. It's the same thing all over
again--except that this time it's with a *real* religion--not a political
ideology.

In your reply, you responded to my suggestion that you were "projecting"
your motives on people who are very different from you by repeating your
rhetorical question. You asked if Muslims care what sort of government (or
culture) the people in Spain have. Frank, the answer is a definite
"YES"! Now, they probably care a lot less about Spain than about the
US. After all, the world isn't exactly drowning in Spanish movies, TV
shows, and rock stars the way it is with the US products. If it were,
Spain would be the target as much as the US. (Of course, I suspect that
there have been several acts of terror in Spain, caused by Muslims--rather
than the usual Basques--that simply weren't reported sufficiently to make
an impression on our consciousness.)

In sum. You have been presented with evidence that militant muslims are at
war with the west because they hate the politically secular pluralism, the
personal freedoms, and the right to choose your pleasure. The evidence is
the Bali bombing. The targets weren't US citizens. Rather, they were
"Westerners" and tourism and the licentious (to them) partying that was
going on. You have chosen to ignore that evidence because it conflicts
with your favored hypothesis that it is US "interventionism" which animates
these people.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

>You replied:
> > Good question. Why would the Puritans care how anyone else in the
> > community lived--especially since they had been persecuted in their home
> > countries? Why should the Spanish priests go to the "New World" and
> > attempt to "civilize" the native peoples by making them change their way
of
> > life? Why would Muslims, whose very religion was begun and grown
through
> > the aggressive use of force, be presumed to be any less judgmental and
> > authoritarian than those judgmental and authoritarian people from
Christian
> > history? With all the examples from history (and I'm sure you could
> > provide plenty more than I, after all, you are the historian) what
earthly
> > reason do you have for thinking that radical Islamics do *NOT* hold the
> > views that Sara Rimensnyder says they do?
>
>At issue isn't that such things have happened, some of which in the
>early American colonies. The issue was, the article that suggested
>that American values are the reason why such venomous hatred is
>spreading against the US and western allies throughout the islamic
>world. If that were the case, then why are the apologists, government
>leaders, including allies, telling America that 'it's our foreign
>policy, and one-side aid to Israel that has inflamed such passions --
>hardly simply because they want to destroy western civilization
>itself.

Oh yes, of course. "Apologists, government leaders, including allies"
could not possibly be telling us anything more than the unabridged
truth. And I've already gone over the issues with Israel. We are hardly
one-sided in favor of Israel. (If only we actually were....)

>Recorded history suggests that a lot of 'use of force' existed
>millenniums before the origin of islam, so how could that be so
>unique,
>at least historically?

That was exactly my point--except in making the claim that Muslims care
about what happens in other countries. If that claim can be made about
historical events from the past, why can't it be made about Islam now?

> > > Saudis, for example, who choose to be
> > >governed under stick islamic law,
>
> > And your evidence of that "choice" is....?
>
>True, there is no open democracy there, but the fact that at least so
>far, the people have accepted the rule by the House of Saud. That
>could change over time, but for the moment, the Saudi government
>exists because the people either tolerate it, or allow it to exist.

Oh sure. They can choose to "accept the rule by the House of Saud" ... or
die ... or rot in prison. Sounds like a real double standard here,
Frank. US freedom isn't good enough for you, but Saudi tyranny is good
enough for those "little brown guys". Sheesh!

> > > shouldn't have any real heartburn
> > >about say Spain, governed in a more pluralistic secular fashion.
> >
> > Frank. What you have displayed here is a classic example of
> > projection. You have projected your attitudes and beliefs on people who
> > are very different than you.
>
>Call it what you will, Lowell. It still holds. I am not projecting my
>beliefs on others; quite the contrary. Do you believe muslims care
>whether or not Spain has a more open and pluralistic society that they
>do? That was the issue I raised.

And that was the issue I was addressing. Yes, I do believe that muslims
care whether Spain has a more open and pluralistic society than they
do. You are projecting your beliefs on them when you claim that they don't
care. I have pointed to evidence that this is not only possible, but
likely. If you want to claim otherwise, please present your evidence.

...
> > And yet,
> > here you are, arguing that some people (Muslims), who are demonstrably
> > different in attitude from you, must somehow share an attitude that you
> hold.
>
>No, that's not at all what I said. Where did I say such a thing. You
>are paraphrasing what I really did say, and making it out that I said
>something else.

Yes you did. You said, " Saudis, for example, who choose to be governed
under stick islamic law, shouldn't have any real heartburn about say Spain,
governed in a more pluralistic secular fashion." And yes, by your
libertarian principles, you are absolutely correct, they
"shouldn't". However, your post was a rhetorical assertion that they
"don't". That is the projection on your part. Or was that part of your
original post really just meaningless, feel-good tripe complaining that
muslims "shouldn't" do something that you just weren't clear about saying
that they actually "did"?

> > As a historian, you should be very well aware that your attitude (that
> > someone in one country should not care how those in another country
behave)
> > is a rather recent innovation, even in the western world.
>
>Now wait a minute Lowell. The US government mostly minded its own
>damn business for over 100 years, unless we were provoked into
>declaring war, or using our military as a means for self-defence. So
>why do you feel what I had to say was recent, or even innovative?
>It's neither recent nor innovative. Up until the end of the Second
>World War, we had a policy of non-intervention, unless that is, we
>were personally attacked. You know for damn sure that for the US
>government at least, the only recent shift since the end of the Second
>World War, is our policy of globalism, world policeman, and blatant
>intervention into other people's own choices at gun point most of the
>time, or economic aggression in other cases.

For a historian, I would have thought that 200 years is a rather short
period of time. Washington's warning against "foreign entanglements" was
as much practical advice to a militarily weak nation as anything
else. Within twelve years of his leaving office, the US Marines got the
"shores of Tripoli" (that's North Africa, for the geographically-declined)
line in their hymn. Within 2 decades of his leaving office, we got in the
middle of a war between Britain and Napolean, *and* we declared that we had
the right to interfere with any European power that sought to expand its
presence in our hemisphere.

>How can you really claim that even most of the western world really
>cared very much about the internal affairs of other people, and the
>way people choose to live, or a government that represents them.
>Colonization was motivated largely by economic greed, rather than
>humanitarian idealism!

Plenty of both. (See Rudyard Kipling's poem, "The White Man's Burden").

> So why do you believe I am innovative, or only
>bringing up new contexts for foreign policy? I know even today, large
>portions of Asia, and likely just about everywhere else, one culture
>really doesn't care very much how other cultures choose to exist.

I'm not saying that you are being innovative--just that the idea is rather
new in history. Conquerors have often "justified" their actions as
"civilizing the savages". (BTW. That's one of the stories for how the
Scottish "Clan of Savage", possibly my ancestors, got their name--they
refused to be "civilized" by William the Conqueror.)

> > And yet, you
> > *assume* that this innovative thinking is shared by people who give
homage
> > to a religion that has always grown through conquest and force--in other
> > words through holding the exact *OPPOSITE* attitutude!
>
>Damn Lowell -- IT'S NOT INNOVATIVE! You seem to be taking something
>totally out of context and milking it for all its worth. Again, I
>doubt very much that muslims regard what Spain chooses for its social
>or political mores;

Bingo. There's the "innovative" idea again, projected onto muslims who
have given ample evidence that they do not share that idea.

> but they would hate Spain a great deal if Spain
>were using superior force to impose their will upon them at gun point,
>or providing large amounts of military or economic aid to an enemy!
>Hey, I don't especially love the islamic religion either, but "it
>doesn't really matter" (to use a college roommates old phrase).

Sure, they might hate that more. But why would they target Australians any
more than Spaniards? (The Bali bombing again.)

> > You're a nice guy, Frank. The terrorists, practically by definition,
are
> > not. That's a pretty good clue that they don't think like you do.
>
>That's why I don't want to leave this hanging here. We all have a
>couple of choices to make. There may be more choices, but there at
>least two relevant ones. You seem to favour placing islam itself as an
>enemy, a religion and movement that is out to destroy any and everyone
>who will neither convert or capitulate. And, yes, I would agree that
>early history of the islamic movement certainly (at least up until
>about the time of the Protestant reformation in the early 1500s)
>showed that islam itself as a political/religious movement was
>becoming a critical problem. Only one thing really changed this
>direction, "gunpowder". The golden age of islam from that point on
>came to crashing end.

Wrong. The muslims had gunpowder, too. The West did, however, develop
superior technology in other ways.

> >From that point on however, it was a reverse movement through
>aggressive western colonial and economic expansion that began several
>hundred years of oppression against muslims almost everywhere (as I
>noted above), from Indonesia (Dutch) to southern Asia (Britain) to
>Morocco (France) and even Spain managed to get in on a little of it in
>what was known as the Spanish Sahara and enclaves in northern Morocco
>the later of which still exist to this day. We can honestly say, that
>for hundreds of years, islamic culture was under the subjugation of
>western power and aggression in various forms, and at gunpoint.

Which BTW, only partially reversed the Islamic gains of earlier
centuries. Or do you take the position that once Islam has conquered some
territory and held it for, say a century or so, that it should be
considered "muslim" and inviolable?

>So, now we come into the 21st century. I'll grant you that the early
>movement of islam certainly was aggressive against the west. But
>hardly any more aggressive than were other previous empires that
>preceded it.

And it is becoming aggressive again--particularly in North Africa where it
is pushing south.

>Again, there may be other choices, but the two I have in mind are:
>
>1). If islam itself is really a mortal enemy of the west, and the rest
>of the world that is non-muslim, then that enemy must be defeated at
>all costs by the west and others, or presumably the west and western
>culture will be destroyed along with all other cultures over a period
>of time. I know this presumes a lot, but that's basically a position
>that you seem to be inclined to take.

Yes, although I would modify that by claiming that there are, perhaps, some
"moderate" variations of Islam with which we can deal peacefully. However,
the "radical" variations may need to be defeated (or at least sent into
retreat) before the "moderate" leaders can risk dealing with us. In the
meantime, I don't think we can take the luxury of sitting on our hands
waiting for them.

>2). Islam, like many civilizations that preceded it, achieved power
>through the use of brute and intensive force. The west has also done
>this for the last 500 years or so (remember, Columbus discovered the
>new world in 1492 just prior to the Protestant reformation that began
>in Europe beginning around 1521). Much of the west's expansion was
>directed against various declining islamic civilizations that could no
>longer defend itself in most cases.

Note however, that much of the wars among Christians were fought between
people who made no claim that the enemy was non-Christian. (The partial
exception being the wars during the Reformation.) Also, you noted above
that colonization by the West was motivated by greed--and I noted that
there was some intent to "civilize" the natives. By contrast, the Islamic
conquest was, literally, a religious war--carried out for the purpose of
expanding the number of people who would "submit" to Allah.

>Okay, there you have it. There are more opportunities if we view the
>block of islamic nations and societies in the second context, or
>really historical context, than there are if we choose to make foreign
>policy choices based upon the first assumption. Basically Lowell, if
>you really believe that the first case is absolutely true and
>incontrovertible, then you have very few choices to make at all. You
>are talking about a long protracted war involving genocide, either
>"convert to our way of thinking" or die! That's essentially what you
>said motivates islam today anyway